Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2017
Citation: 2017 INSC 1012
Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Can adjournments in criminal trials lead to witnesses being influenced, thereby jeopardizing the pursuit of justice? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed the critical issue of trial delays and the need for continuous witness examination in criminal cases. The Court dismissed the appeals against the conviction of nine individuals for murder, while also expressing concern over trial court practices regarding adjournments. The judgment emphasizes strict adherence to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to ensure fair and expeditious trials. The bench comprised Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit.
Case Background
The case involves the murder of one Bhagwan Singh in Sikar, Rajasthan, on May 27, 2005. Twenty individuals were initially tried for the crime. Ultimately, nine individuals were convicted by both the trial court and the High Court. These nine individuals are the appellants in this case before the Supreme Court. The other accused were either acquitted or had passed away.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 27, 2005 | Murder of Bhagwan Singh in Sikar, Rajasthan. |
| April 13, 2010 | Examination-in-chief of star witness PW-14 Prabhu Singh recorded. |
| August 25, 2010 | Trial adjourned on the request of defence counsel. |
| September 24, 2010 | Part evidence of witnesses recorded. |
| October 11, 2010 | Trial adjourned again. |
| (Prior to) April 10, 2010 | Four witnesses from the same family turned hostile. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted nine individuals for the murder of Bhagwan Singh. The High Court upheld this conviction. The convicted individuals then appealed to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the record, found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. However, the Supreme Court noted a disturbing trend in how the trial was conducted, specifically regarding adjournments.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that trials should proceed on a continuous basis. Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. states:
“Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.—(1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.”
The Court emphasized that this provision aims to protect witnesses and ensure the efficient administration of justice. The Court noted that adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons, and not merely for the convenience of lawyers or parties.
Arguments
The appellants argued that there were infirmities in the judgments of the lower courts. However, the Supreme Court did not find any merit in these arguments. The Court focused primarily on the procedural aspects of the trial, particularly the issue of frequent adjournments.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Arguments by Appellants |
|
| Arguments by the State |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue addressed was:
✓ Whether the trial court adhered to the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. regarding continuous witness examination.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Section 309 Cr.P.C. | The Court noted that the trial court did not adhere to the mandate of Section 309, as there were long adjournments after the examination of the star witness. The Court emphasized the need for continuous witness examination to prevent witnesses from being influenced. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court referred to several of its previous judgments to emphasize the importance of continuous witness examination:
- State of U.P. versus Shambhu Nath Singh and Others [2001] 4 SCC 667 – The Supreme Court observed that it was a pity that the sessions court adjourned the matter for a long interval after the commencement of evidence, contrary to the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that once the examination of witnesses begins, it has to be continued from day to day unless there are special reasons to adjourn.
- Mohd. Khalid versus State of W.B. [2002] 7 SCC 334 – The Supreme Court noted how adjournments can lead to witnesses being won over. It was observed that unnecessary adjournments give scope for a grievance that the accused persons get time to get over the witnesses.
- Vinod Kumar versus State of Punjab [2015] 3 SCC 220 – The Supreme Court noted how unwarranted adjournments during the trial jeopardize the administration of Justice. It was observed that adjournments were granted on a mere asking and the cross-examination of the witnesses were deferred without recording any special reason.
- Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar [1998] 7 SCC 507 – The Court referred to the time frame suggested by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar in consideration of the legislative mandate contained in Section 309(1) of the Code.
- N.G. Dastane versus Shrikant S. Shivde [2001] 6 SCC 135 – The Court referred to this case in the context of highlighting the aspects of unnecessary adjournments in trial.
- Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab [2013]7 SCC 108 – The Court referred to the pronouncement in this case to reiterate the law and express anguish pertaining to the manner in which the trial was conducted.
- Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar AIR 1958 SC 376 – The Court referred to this case to highlight the duty of the criminal courts to ensure that the risk to fair trial is removed and trials are allowed to proceed smoothly.
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| State of U.P. versus Shambhu Nath Singh and Others [2001] 4 SCC 667 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Emphasized the need for continuous trials. |
| Mohd. Khalid versus State of W.B. [2002] 7 SCC 334 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Highlighted the risk of witness tampering due to adjournments. |
| Vinod Kumar versus State of Punjab [2015] 3 SCC 220 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Reiterated that unwarranted adjournments jeopardize justice. |
| Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar [1998] 7 SCC 507 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Referred to the time frame suggested for trials. |
| N.G. Dastane versus Shrikant S. Shivde [2001] 6 SCC 135 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Referred in the context of adjournments in trial. |
| Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab [2013]7 SCC 108 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Referred to reiterate the law and express anguish pertaining to the manner in which the trial was conducted. |
| Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar AIR 1958 SC 376 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Referred to highlight the duty of the criminal courts to ensure that the risk to fair trial is removed. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ argument of infirmities in lower court judgments. | Rejected – The Court found no merit in the arguments and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. |
The Court observed that the trial court had adjourned the matter for a long period after the examination-in-chief of the star witness, PW-14 Prabhu Singh. The matter was adjourned from April 13, 2010, to August 25, 2010, which is a period of more than four months. The court noted that this was contrary to the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.
The court further noted that part evidence of the witnesses was recorded on September 24, 2010, and the matter was again adjourned to October 11, 2010. The court also noted that four witnesses of the same family had become hostile in their statements recorded on April 10, 2010.
The Court reiterated the importance of continuous witness examination to prevent witnesses from being influenced. The Court emphasized that the trial courts must carry out the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. as reiterated in the judgments of the Supreme Court.
The Court also emphasized that eye-witnesses must be examined by the prosecution as soon as possible and that statements of eye-witnesses should invariably be recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as per the procedure prescribed therein.
The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent by the Secretary-General to the Registrars of all the High Courts for being forwarded to all the presiding officers in their respective jurisdictions.
| Authority | How the Court viewed it |
|---|---|
| State of U.P. versus Shambhu Nath Singh and Others [2001] 4 SCC 667 | The Court reiterated the principle that once the examination of witnesses begins, the same has to be continued from day-to-day unless there are special reasons to adjourn. |
| Mohd. Khalid versus State of W.B. [2002] 7 SCC 334 | The Court reiterated that unnecessary adjournments give scope for a grievance that the accused persons get time to get over the witnesses. |
| Vinod Kumar versus State of Punjab [2015] 3 SCC 220 | The Court reiterated that unwarranted adjournments during the trial jeopardize the administration of Justice. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure fair and expeditious trials in criminal cases. The Court was concerned about the practice of granting frequent adjournments, which can lead to witnesses being influenced or won over. The Court emphasized that the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. must be strictly followed to protect the integrity of the trial process and to ensure that justice is served.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of continuous witness examination | 40% |
| Adherence to Section 309 of Cr.P.C. | 30% |
| Protection of witnesses from influence | 20% |
| Expeditious trial process | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Issue: Adherence to Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Trial Court adjourned the matter for a long period after examination of star witness.
This is contrary to Section 309 Cr.P.C. which mandates continuous trials.
Adjournments can lead to witnesses being influenced.
Supreme Court directs strict adherence to Section 309 Cr.P.C. and continuous witness examination.
The Supreme Court observed that “In a criminal case of this nature, the trial court has to be mindful that for the protection of witness and also in the interest of justice the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. has to be complied with and evidence should be recorded on continuous basis.”
The Court further noted, “If this is not done, there is every chance of witnesses succumbing to the pressure or threat of the accused.”
The Court also stated, “The eye-witnesses must be examined by the prosecution as soon as possible.”
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts must strictly adhere to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. and ensure continuous witness examination.
- Adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons, not for the convenience of lawyers or parties.
- Eye-witnesses should be examined by the prosecution as soon as possible.
- Statements of eye-witnesses should be recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrars of all High Courts for being forwarded to all the presiding officers in their respective jurisdictions.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that trial courts must strictly adhere to the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. which requires continuous witness examination in criminal trials. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and emphasizes the importance of expeditious trials to ensure justice. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the Court has reiterated the importance of following the existing law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in this case, upholding the conviction of the appellants. However, the Court used this opportunity to highlight the need for trial courts to strictly adhere to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. and ensure continuous witness examination. The judgment serves as a reminder that procedural lapses can jeopardize the pursuit of justice and that trial courts must be vigilant in ensuring fair and expeditious trials.