TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Sections 34, 120B, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The incident that provides the genesis of the case aforementioned took place on 16th November, 2005 in which one Mulubhai Modhwadiya was gunned down resulting in registration of Criminal Case No. I 170 of 2005 at Kamlabaug Police Station, Porbandar for the offences mentioned earlier. Upon completion of the investigation, the jurisdictional police filed a charge sheet on 15th February, 2006 before a Magistrate who committed the same to the Sessions Court to be registered as Case No. 5 of 2007. 3. The police charge-sheet cited a large number of witnesses out of whom as many as 134 have been examined by the prosecution. It was, at this stage, that an application was filed by the son of the deceased on 17th March, 2008 in which the applicant prayed for adding the Petitioner-Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria as an accused in exercise of the Courts power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Judge allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner in the main petition only and although the prayer for stay made in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20502 of 2008, he had simply asked for stay of the judgment and final order passed by the High Court. The order passed by this Court on 17th December, 2008 was, however, understood as though the trial itself was stayed in toto. This was, according to Mr. Lalit, not only depriving the applicant of his fundamental right of a speedy trial but also depriving him of his personal liberty with hardly any chances of an early conclusion of the trial in the near future, He submitted that even if the order passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court was eventually upheld and the addition of the Petitioner in the special leave petition was declared to be justified, the said Petitioner could be tried separately as there was no legal bar to such a trial. Reliance in support was placed by Learned Counsel upon the decisions of this Court in Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 738, Michael Machado and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 262 and Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 378. 7. On behalf of the Respondents, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial which had by that time concluded before the trial Court. Be that as it may, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had no objection to the order passed by this Court being modified so as to confine its operation to the Petitioner-Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria only. So long as the Petitioner was not tried, pursuant to the order passed against him, he had no objection to the trial Court proceeding to conclude the proceedings against the remaining accused persons. Such being the position, we see no reason why order dated 17th December, 2008, even assuming the same was intended to suspend further proceedings before the trial Court, should not be modified so as to limit the effect thereof to the addition of the Petitioner only. We say so because if the Petitioner as dominus litis has no objection to the continuance and conclusion of the trial in his absence qua other accused persons and is not, therefore, asking for stay of the trial qua everybody; there is no justification for granting to him a relief larger than what is being prayed for by the Petitioner. 12. Time now to deal with the contention urged by Mr. Singhvi, that the expression could be tried together appearing in Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eau of Investigation (2000) 3 SCC 262 in the following words: 13. Reliance by Learned Counsel for Respondent 1 has been placed on Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi in support of the contention that Respondent 1 could be tried only with Chandra Shekhar Singh and his trial having concluded, Respondent 1 cannot be now tried pursuant to order under Section 319(1) of the Code. This Court in the cited decision was not concerned with the issue which has fallen for consideration before us. The same is the position in respect of Michael Machado v, Central Bureau of Investigation. There this Court considered the scope of the provision as to the circumstances under which the court may proceed to make an order under Section 319 and not the question as to the effect of the conclusion of the trial after passing an order under Section 319(1). None of these decisions have any relevance for determining the point in issue. 14. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 378, where too a similar question arose for consideration, Relying upon the decision of this Court in Shashikant Singh's case (supra) this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 344, this Court sounded the following note of caution against delay of criminal trials: 16. ...The essence of the matter is that all procedure, no matter what the stage, must be fair, just and reasonable... Article 21 stands like a sentinel over human misery... It reverberates through all stages-the trial, the sentence, the incarceration and finally, the execution of the sentence. 17. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra (1985) 1 SCC 275 and Triveni Ben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678. Even in cases where the accused had been enlarged on bail the right to a speedy trial was held to he a part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The decisions of this Court in Biswanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 97 and Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 149 may be referred to in this regard. 18. It is in the light of the settled legal position no longer possible to question the legitimacy of the right to speedy trial as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The essence of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
