State of M.P. Vs. Ganga Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- rajeev gupta, j.1. 'undue haste', on the part of the trial court, in closing the trial and in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, is ex-facie apparent from the order-sheets of the trial court, and the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the trial court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 4-6-1988 within 5 days of the filing of the chargesheet, against the accused on 30-5-1988.2. the incident, in question, took place on 14-4-1988. the charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed on 30-5-1988, and the charges against them for the commission of the offence punishable under sections 435/34 indian penal code were framed the same day. the case then was fixed for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on 4-6-1988. though there was no representation on behalf of the prosecution/state on 4-6-1988, but as one prosecution witness samar bahadur appeared himself, the trial court, after recording his evidence, closed the prosecution case and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal within 1 1/2 months of the commission of the offence.3. 'justice delayed is justice denied' and 'justice hurried is justice buried' are the two 'age old sayings' which reflect extreme situations which no 'judicial system' can afford, as both are bound to obstruct the 'natural flow' of 'fountain of justice'. for an 'ideal' course, the courts are to strike a balance between these two situations.4. 'speedy trial' no doubt is the need of the hour, but not in the manner and fashion in which the trial court has proceeded in the present case. 'speedy trial' does not mean that the parties to the litigation are not to be granted sufficient opportunity for leading their evidence in the case.5. the apex court, while considering somewhat similar circumstances in the case of sunil kumar pal v. phota shiekh and ors., reported in air 1984 sc 1591, observed in para 9 :-'..........................we have no doubt that under these circumstances the trial could not be regarded as fair and just so far as the prosecution was concerned. the entire course of events shows that the conduct of the trial was heavily loaded in favour of respondents 1 to 9. the trial must in the circumstances be held to be vitiated and the acquittal of respondents 1 to 9, as a result of such trial, must be set aside............'the apex court, therefore, while setting aside the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons, directed their re-trial, though a period of about 9 years had elapsed since the commission of the offence.6. in the present case, as is apparent from the charge-sheet, filed against the accused persons, as many as 6 witnesses were proposed to be examined by the prosecution at the trial. though no one was present on behalf of the state, on 4-6-1988, for making a prayer for adjournment for the examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses, but it was the duty, of the trial court also to see that all the material witnesses in the case are examined, and if necessary coercive process ought to have been issued, for ensuring their presence in the court. the trial court, not having adopted the above procedure, has committed serious illegality, which warrants interference, by this court, in this appeal against acquittal. looking to the serious nature of the offence alleged against the accused persons, the case deserves to be remanded to the trial court for proceeding further and for recording the evidence of the remaining prosecution witnesses. this court, while remanding the case back to the trial court, is fully aware that a period of more than 10 years has already elapsed since the commission of the offence and passing of the impugned judgment of acquittal. refusing to interfere in the matter would certainly amount to encouraging the tendency of disposing the matters in 'undue haste', which deserves to be nipped at the bud.7. for the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 4-6-1988, passed by judicial magistrate first class, rewa in criminal case no. 226/1988, acquitting respondents accused persons ganga singh and vishnu pratap singh, of the charges under section 435/34, of the indian penal code, is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial court, for proceeding further according to law.