Chandigarh March 24:
For the first time in the country’s judicial history, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has exercised its inherent powers to set free proclaimed offenders (POs) in a murder case without making them undergo the rigour of a criminal trial.
Setting a precedent for times to come, a Division Bench ruled: “The settled position is that this court has the jurisdiction to quash the entire criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the court to secure the ends of justice.” “In our view, the same inherent powers can be exercised when the court finds that innocent accused, who had absconded, would simply face empty formality of the trial with the very same unbelievable and untrustworthy evidence, which (resulted in the acquittal of co-accused, and) would ultimately lead to their acquittal.”
The path-breaking judgment came after the Bench held that the co-accused, sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, had been implicated; and the “rickety evidence” in the case would eventually result in the acquittal of the POs as well, even if they were made to face trial. The judgment is significant as “trial in absentia” is practically unknown in India and the POs have to stand in the dock to come clean, even if the co-accused stand acquitted.
The exceptional judgment by Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and M. Jeyapaul came on the appeal filed by Bihar residents, Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal, against the State of Punjab. They were convicted for murdering Mohammad Haleem following a fight over drawing water from a tap. The Bench asserted: “We find the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed are set aside…. The facts and circumstances have persuaded us to come to a definite conclusion that the accused in this case were not the perpetrators of the crime of murder as alleged by the prosecution.
The same set of material would be produced before the sessions court on the production of the remaining three accused….” “We are very much concerned about absconding village rustic accused Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal, who successfully evaded the dragnet of the police…”
Quashing the proceedings, the Bench added: “We seriously pondered over rendering judicial succour to those faceless and voiceless accused, who had taken to heels and hidden themselves apprehending the wrath of criminal proceedings from the heinous crime of murder. We are convinced that our judicial arm is not so crippled as to betray the vague hope of the hopeless.”
“We are conscious of the fact that those three accused had absconded and were declared POs. They had not faced the trial. But when we find that no case could be made out against them also with the same very rickety material, those accused also will have to be relieved of the impending pain of facing the prosecution for murder”. The Bench concluded: “Brining the absconding accused to face trial in the case in the facts and circumstance would amount to abused of the process of court.”
For the first time in the country’s judicial history, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has exercised its inherent powers to set free proclaimed offenders (POs) in a murder case without making them undergo the rigour of a criminal trial.
Setting a precedent for times to come, a Division Bench ruled: “The settled position is that this court has the jurisdiction to quash the entire criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the court to secure the ends of justice.” “In our view, the same inherent powers can be exercised when the court finds that innocent accused, who had absconded, would simply face empty formality of the trial with the very same unbelievable and untrustworthy evidence, which (resulted in the acquittal of co-accused, and) would ultimately lead to their acquittal.”
The path-breaking judgment came after the Bench held that the co-accused, sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, had been implicated; and the “rickety evidence” in the case would eventually result in the acquittal of the POs as well, even if they were made to face trial. The judgment is significant as “trial in absentia” is practically unknown in India and the POs have to stand in the dock to come clean, even if the co-accused stand acquitted.
The exceptional judgment by Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and M. Jeyapaul came on the appeal filed by Bihar residents, Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal, against the State of Punjab. They were convicted for murdering Mohammad Haleem following a fight over drawing water from a tap. The Bench asserted: “We find the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed are set aside…. The facts and circumstances have persuaded us to come to a definite conclusion that the accused in this case were not the perpetrators of the crime of murder as alleged by the prosecution.
The same set of material would be produced before the sessions court on the production of the remaining three accused….” “We are very much concerned about absconding village rustic accused Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal, who successfully evaded the dragnet of the police…”
Quashing the proceedings, the Bench added: “We seriously pondered over rendering judicial succour to those faceless and voiceless accused, who had taken to heels and hidden themselves apprehending the wrath of criminal proceedings from the heinous crime of murder. We are convinced that our judicial arm is not so crippled as to betray the vague hope of the hopeless.”
“We are conscious of the fact that those three accused had absconded and were declared POs. They had not faced the trial. But when we find that no case could be made out against them also with the same very rickety material, those accused also will have to be relieved of the impending pain of facing the prosecution for murder”. The Bench concluded: “Brining the absconding accused to face trial in the case in the facts and circumstance would amount to abused of the process of court.”
