The Supreme Court on Monday strongly deprecated the “dilatory tactics” adopted by the parties and their advocates for “deflecting the course of justice” in a murder case, where seven of the convicts have been awarded death sentence.
The top court dismissed an appeal filed by a convict challenging the Madras High Court order in which it had refused to wait for the documents relied upon in the investigation, which they had sought from the investigating officer of the case and asked the parties to proceed with the hearing.
A bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat stated, “We are of the opinion that the instances in which the request became made through the letter after attraction changed into set down for hearing notwithstanding repeated possibilities was no longer justified.” “The appellant may want to have sought recourse by way of submitting the correct software, in accordance with the techniques set out, well in time. We therefore agree that the attraction made at this overdue stage appears to be to extend the hearing. In those instances, the courtroom declines to intervene. The enchantment is for this reason brushed off,” the bench said.
Justice Bela M Trivedi, who become also a part of the bench, took a strict view and said, “Such a dilatory strategies followed through the events and their advocates and thereby deflecting the course of justice inside the cases just like the gift one, wherein a number of the appellant-accused are facing the demise penalty and some sentence of existence imprisonment are strongly deprecated.” Justice Trivedi, in a separate but concurring order, said that it's miles unnecessary to say that the death penalty instances referred with the aid of the classes courts to the high court docket need to be given utmost priority and need to be heard and completed by using the high court as expeditiously as possible and preferably inside six months.
She said that from the observations made by the excessive courtroom in the impugned order, which have remained unchallenged before this court docket, it changed into best due to the non-cooperation on behalf of the counsels performing for the accused, the high court docket become not able to pay attention the reference case. “The court won't need to remind the senior advocates in their responsibilities to assist the courts for the motive of justice, and now not to indulge into dilatory strategies and bog down the cause of justice,” Justice Trivedi said.
The bench recorded the sequence of occasion, noting that City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 109, 341, 302 study with segment 34 of IPC had offered demise penalty to seven convicts and one become offered lifestyles sentence. The periods court had referred its judgement and order to the excessive courtroom for confirmation of the loss of life penalty presented to some of the accused underneath Section 366 CrPC. The accused also had filed separate nine appeals earlier than the high courtroom challenging the judgement and order exceeded by way of the classes courtroom in the said case. The apex court docket said that the excessive court docket after ascertaining the benefit of all the advocates acting for the parties had fixed the date for very last hearing on June 15, 2022 vide the order dated April 27, 2022. Justice Trivedi stated, “On September 14, even though the nation public prosecutor changed into prepared to argue, one of the senior advocates from Delhi appeared before the excessive court and requested the court docket to adjourn the listening to.” She noted that at that point, the kingdom public prosecutor drew the attention of the excessive court to a letter dated September 5, 2022 sent through advocate G Sriram performing for the accused addressed to the Inspector (Law and Order) Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai, asking him to supply positive files, stating therein inter-alia that the stated documents had been required for fair adjudication in their case inside the light of the Supreme Court’s decision (in case of Manoj and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh, May 20, 2022). Justice Trivedi said, “The stated letter was placed on record through the country public prosecutor. On the stated date i.E., September 14, 2022, the senior advise who had come from Delhi assured the court docket that she had discussed with all the counsels who have been appearing for the appellants and that each one had assured her that they would proceed with the listening to on October 17, 2022.” The bench noted that the high courtroom apprised her (senior endorse from Delhi) that the case pertained to the sentence of death penalty, which had to be finished inside six months and that for the final twelve months there has been no development in the case due to non-cooperation of the accused. “However, she (attorney from Delhi) repeatedly assured the court docket that no person could searching for adjournment on October 17, 2022, and consequently the high court docket out of sheer courtesy and admire for the senior recommend adjourned the case to October 17, 2022,” it stated.
The bench said that despite such guarantee having been given by way of the senior suggest and all different advocates, consisting of other senior advocates acting for the alternative accused, to the excessive courtroom to proceed with the listening to of the reference case and the appeals, the appellant rushed to this courtroom to impede the hearing constant earlier than the high court on October 17, 2022.
“In the aforesaid premises, the strive made on behalf of the appellant accused and the opposite accused to postpone the listening to of the appeals and the demise reference case pending before the excessive court, under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from the investigating officer become sincerely reprehensible,” it stated.
You must be logged in to post a comment.