LN Mishra Murder Case and Right to Speedy Trial: A Lesson

The Supreme Court today refused to quash Criminal proceedings against the accused in a 37 years old murder case. Justice HL Dattu and Justice CK Prasad dismissed the plea of the accused who had pleaded that the trial be terminated as it has not been concluded in the past 37 years and is violating their right to speedy trial. 

The Court said that the accused persons in the case took adjournments from 1999 to 2012 and they cannot take the profit of the right of speedy trial by causing such delay and then use that delay for asserting their rights. The aim of article 21 and the criminal procedure is to relieve an accused of the anxiety associated with a suspended prosecution. But, in this case the delay is solely attributable to the petitioners.The court also said: 

"”We certainly say that our system has not failed, but, accused was successful in dragging on the proceedings to a stage where, if it is drawn further, it may snap the justice delivery system. We are also conscious of the fact that more than thirty Judges had tried this case at one stage or the other, but, all of them have taken care to see that the trial is completed at the earliest," 

"They (Judges) are not to be blamed and certainly the system has not to be blamed, but, positively, somebody has succeeded in his or in their attempt. The system has done its best, but, has not achieved the expected result," 

Apart from this, the petitioner’s counsel said that the failure to complete trial had caused great hardship and prejudice to not only the petitioners but also their family members. The judge replied in a brilliant manner and said: “Presumptive prejudice is not a lone dispositive of speedy trial claim and must be balanced against other factors. There is no basis for holding that the right to speedy trial can be quantified into a specified number of days, months or years. The mere passage of time is not sufficient to establish denial of a right to speedy trial, but a lengthy delay, which is presumptively prejudicial, triggers the examination of other factors to determine whether the rights have been violated.” 

Justice CK Prasad was slightly sympathetic to the accused but said: "Judicial discipline expects us to follow the ratio and prohibits laying down any principle in derogation of the ratio laid down by the earlier decisions of the Constitution Benches of this Court," 

I feel that it is a very important verdict. It is a lesson for our society. It tells us that even if we try to find loopholes in the system and use it to our advantage, a day will come when those loopholes, instead of giving advantage, will become a pain and will not fade away even if we try to. On that day, we can blame only ourselves and no one else. Same thing happened in this case. The accused dragged the trial for years but even after so much dragging and avoiding the inevitable; a day came when they could no longer live with that suspended prosecution and it became a thorn in their necks. And when they approached the Apex Court for relief, the Apex Court also had its hands full. Let us hope that people learn a lesson from this verdict.