TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nda Singh came there. They requested the appellants to refrain from doing so. Thereupon the appellants replied that they would teach them a lesson for helping the family of Kulwant Singh. 2. Appellant Chhota Singh picked up a brickbat and hit it on the chest of Chamkaur Singh. Chamkaur Singh tried to get back. Thereupon appellant Mal Singh gave a brickbat blow on the neck of deceased Chamkaur Singh. Both the appellants threw brickbats on Chamkaur Singh and he fell down. They made good their escape. The deceased was taken in a trolley to Civil Hospital, Moga. He was declared to be dead. Inspector Inder Singh then Officer-in- Charge Police Station City Moga received information from the hospital and went there. He recorded the statement of Chanda Singh. It was signed by Chanda Singh. On basis of it first information report was recorded. Inder Singh had drawn the inquest proceedings. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. It was conducted by Dr. Ramesh Kumar who found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :- 1. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the back of neck on its upper ?. On dissection, clotted blood was present in muscles. On further dissection, secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he deceased lying on the ground and not falling from the roof on the ground. 5. The learned trial court on appraisal of the evidence held that the defence version of the appellants was false. The testimonies of the eye-witnesses namely Chanda Singh and Kulwant Singh were accepted. Acting on their statements, the trial court held that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. But it was concluded that in the facts, instead of Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the appellants had committed the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. With these findings, the impugned judgment was pronounced, followed by the order of sentence mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 6. In the present case, there was no controversy raised about the cause of death namely as opined by Dr. Ramesh Kumar PW-4 that it was as a result of the injuries received by deceased Chamkaur Singh. It had been opined that injuries No. 1 and 2 already referred to above were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. There was no controversy also agitated that if facts are established, only Section 304 Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prito came to our house and abused my sister-in-law Mukhtiar Kaur. Prito is related to Chhinder Kaur. About two hours of this occurrence, I was taken thereafter by Baldev Singh and Chamkaur Singh to their plot. This occurrence took place about 8 months back. I, along with Chamkaur Singh, Baldev Singh and Chanda Singh were coming back from that plot after making the watt. At about 5 P.M. when we reached near my house, both the accused Chhota Singh and Mal Singh were abusing my sister-in-law Mukhtiar Kaur. I asked them that why they were abusing. Baldev Singh and Chamkaur Singh also had said to them that they should settle the matter calmly. Both the accused then said to the deceased Chamkaur Singh and Baldev Singh that they would teach them a lesson as they were helping me and my family. Chhota accused then gave a brickbat to Chamkaur Singh hitting on his chest by picking it up from there. Mal Singh also gave a brickbat hitting the deceased on the back of his neck. He fell down. 12. He was also cross-examined at length and added that no person from the neighbourhood had come to the place of occurrence. He further added that two brickbats had caused the injuries to the decease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k that even under our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 597. We have held in that case that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law, but that the procedure should be 'reasonable, fair and just.' 20. The Full Bench of Patna High Court in the case Madheshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) RCR (Crl.) 302 (FB) : AIR 1986 Patna 324 went on to hold that speedy justice is not applicable only to trial but also to appeals and revisions that may be pending. In the facts of that case because of delay, the proceedings were quashed. In paragraph 54 it was held :- 21. It is the admitted position that the petitioner who is a public servant of gazetted rank has lain under the shadow of a criminal cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and also put an end to a stale criminal proceeding in which the public had no longer sufficient interest. 24. These feelings of tremendous agony to the accused had been noted with concern by the Supreme Court in the case State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1266. In paragraph 7 the Court held :- 7. There is no denying the fact that a lethargic and lackadaisical manner of investigation over a prolonged period makes an accused in a criminal proceeding to live every moment under extreme emotional and mental stress and strain and to remain always under a fear psychosis. Therefore, it is imperative that if investigation of a criminal proceeding staggers on with tardy pace due to the indolence or inefficiency of the investigating agency causing unreasonable and substantial delay resulting in grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused, the Court as the protector of the right and personal liberty of the citizen will step in and resort to the drastic remedy of quashing further proceedings in such investigation. 25. However, the Court hastened to add that in certain cases delay in investigation and obviously subsequent trial is harassment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urbance to his vocation and peace resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and (c) undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, dis-appearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise. 4. At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that it is usually the accused who is interested in delaying the proceedings. As is often pointed out, delay is a known defence tactic . Since the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies upon the prosecution, delay ordinarily prejudices the prosecution. Non-availability of witnesses, disappearance of evidence by lapse of time really work against the interest of the prosecution. Of course, there may be cases where the prosecution, for whatever reason, also delays the proceedings. Therefore, in every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the first question to be put and answered is who is responsible for the delay ? Proceedings taken by either party in good faith, to vindicate their rights and interest, as perceived by them, cannot be treated as delaying tactics nor can the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
