Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme 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.

Latest Legal News