Supreme Court sets aside withdrawal of prosecution of MLA accused of double murder in broad daylight

Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal highlighting the alarming trend where cases, particularly those involving influential figures, face significant delays, obstructing the administration of justice, the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. while emphasizing the paramount importance of ensuring progression of the trial without further delay, set aside the withdrawal of prosecution of accused, an MLA, as allowed by the Trial Court. Further, the Court asked the High Court to ensure that justice is not further delayed or compromised- due to political influence or any other extraneous factors.

The present appeal arises out of the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court, whereby the hearing of a batch of criminal revision petitions was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the accused persons for the sixth time.

The appellant is seeking intervention of this Court on the ground that grave injustice has been caused to him and his family as the trial has been pending for almost three decades on account of the prolonged pendency of the criminal revision petitions for twelve years. The accused persons have been seeking adjournments in the criminal revision petitions as a delay tactic to prolong the trial, thus aggravating the suffering of the deceased’s family and delaying the process of justice.

The Court said that the undue influence wielded by powerful individuals further exacerbates the situation, raising concerns about fairness and impartiality. This underscores the urgent need to address systemic flaws and ensure timely resolution of legal disputes.

The Court said that it is apparent that this case presents concerning circumstances wherein politically influential individuals, accused of a double murder in broad daylight, have evaded trial for almost three decades. The Bench further acknowledged that it is evident from the Trial Court’s order that political power has been leveraged to secure the withdrawal of prosecution of one of the accused. While the other nine accused were put to trial and their applications rejected without a reasoned order, this order being challenged by both, accused persons and the victims, has remained pending before the High Court for twelve years and the resultant stagnation in trial proceedings is deeply troubling.

The Court remarked that given the gravity of the situation and the risk of miscarriage of justice, urgent action is warranted.

The Court opined that merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the public. Matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder in the present case do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation. Such withdrawal cannot be said to be allowed in the public interest. This reasoning cannot be accepted especially in cases of involvement of influential people.

The Court said that the High Court in repeatedly allowing the adjournment requests has only allowed the accused persons to deploy dilatory tactics to delay their trial and have failed to ensure that the justice system is set in motion and is not halted due to the lamentable specter of political influence.

Thus, the Court set aside the withdrawal of prosecution of accused as allowed by the Trial Court. Further, the Court asked the High Court to ensure that justice is not further delayed or compromised- due to political influence or any other extraneous factors.