GRANTS BAIL IN NDPS CASE, HOLDS DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS ALONE INSUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION Foreign Conviction Does Not Shield Accused from Indian Prosecution: Uttarakhand High Court Denies Bail in Bitcoin Money Laundering Case Forfeiture of Earnest Money Must Be Reasonable, No Interest Payable If Buyer Cancels Due to Falling Property Prices: Supreme Court IBPS | Exam Bodies Must Provide Scribes and Extra Time to All Disabled Candidates, Not Just Those With Benchmark Disabilities: Supreme Court Minor Discrepancies in Witness Statements Do Not Discredit Their Reliability," Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murder Case Suspicion, No Matter How Strong, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Murder Case Prolonged Incarceration Violates Article 21 – Bail Granted Despite NDPS Act Restrictions: Kerala High Court Kolkata Book Fair Not a Public Function: Calcutta High Court Dismisses VHP's Writ Petition A Gift With Conditions is Not a Gift in Perpetuity – Violation of Purpose Mandates Reversion: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Demand Advocate in Domestic Enquiry Unless Employer’s Representative is a Legally Trained Mind: Bombay High Court Milkman as Scribe Raises Eyebrows: High Court Dismisses Property Claim Over Suspicious Will Contractor Bound by Contractual Terms, No Right to Claim Damages After Accepting Extensions: Supreme Court On Failure of the Highest Bidder, Property Must Be Re-Auctioned, Private Negotiation Impermissible: Karnataka High Court Preventive Detention Without Procedural Compliance is Unconstitutional: Kerala High Court Quashes Detention Order Under KAAPA Courts Are for Litigants, Not the Other Way Around: Madras High Court Overhauls Family Court Procedures Landlord is the Best Judge of His Requirement; Tenant Cannot Dictate Alternative Properties: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction Khatedari Rights Cannot Be Claimed Over SC Land Through Adverse Possession: Rajasthan High Court A Law Cannot Be Struck Down on Overruled Precedents: Calcutta High Court Upholds West Bengal Entry Tax Act Producer of Film Is First Owner of Soundtrack Unless Contract States Otherwise: Delhi High Court Affirms Saregama’s Rights Mere Refusal to Repay a Loan Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Under Section 306 IPC: Allahabad High Court Mere Re-Appreciation of Evidence Is Not Permissible in a Second Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Merely Alleging Money Laundering Without Evidence is an Abuse of Legal Process: Bombay High Court Imposed 1 Lakh Cost on ED Right to Private Defence is Not Absolute and Cannot Extend to Inflicting Fatal Injuries: Punjab and Haryana High Court Failure to Pay Business Dues Does Not Constitute a Criminal Offense: Calcutta High Court Quashes Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust Proceedings Income Tax | Reassessment Notices Must Pass Surviving Time Test—Delhi High Court Directs AOs to Comply with Supreme Court's Rajeev Bansal Ruling Perjury Allegations Against Wife and Counsel Dismissed; Court Imposes Costs for Frivolous Litigation: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Permits Protest on Temple Land Encroachment Issue, Imposes Restrictions for Public Order A Senior Citizen’s Right to Peace Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Permissive Occupant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Eviction of Son-in-Law from Father-in-Law’s House Widows Applying on Merit Cannot Be Denied Relaxation Under Two-Child Norm: Rajasthan High Court

Supreme Court Condemns Political Influence in Judiciary: “Withdrawal of Prosecution Cannot Be Based on Public Image”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court sets aside trial court’s order in a decades-old double murder case, directs expeditious trial.

In a landmark judgment delivered on July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of India has nullified the trial court’s order allowing the withdrawal of prosecution against a politically influential accused, Chhote Singh, in a double murder case dating back nearly three decades. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, underscored the importance of judicial integrity and the dangers posed by political interference in the judicial process. The court also directed the Allahabad High Court to expedite the trial and resolve the long-pending criminal revisions.

The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on May 30, 1994, by Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, alleging that several accused, including Chhote Singh, attacked and killed Jagdish Sharan Srivastava and Rajkumar alias Raja Bhaiya. The accused were armed and allegedly motivated by prior complaints against them involving criminal activities. Despite being initially named in the charge sheet, Chhote Singh’s prosecution was withdrawn by the trial court in 2012, citing his good public image and political standing.

The Supreme Court condemned the nearly three-decade delay in the trial, attributing it to the political influence of the accused. “The judicial system of our country often finds itself grappling with the pervasive issues of prolonged delay and suspected political influence within the legal proceedings," the bench noted. The court criticized the High Court for repeatedly adjourning the hearings, thereby enabling the accused to use dilatory tactics.

The trial court’s decision to allow the withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh was harshly criticized. The Supreme Court emphasized that withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be based on the merits of the case rather than the accused’s public image or political standing. “Matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder in the present case do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation,” the court asserted.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the trial court’s reasoning, which relied heavily on Chhote Singh’s political status and public image, was flawed. The court reiterated that political power should not influence judicial decisions. “Merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the general public,” Justice Vikram Nath observed.

Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “The corroboration provided by the political influence is a significant factor that hinders the prosecution??s case, especially when judicial processes are delayed under duress.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the trial court’s order and direct the High Court to expedite the trial marks a significant step towards ensuring that political influence does not derail the course of justice. By reaffirming the necessity of evaluating cases based on their merits, the judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and the rule of law. This ruling is expected to expedite pending cases involving influential individuals and reinforce the legal framework to prevent misuse of political power in judicial proceedings.

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Similar News