Right to speedy trial a valuable right of victim too: SC

New Delhi: Observing that right to speedy trial is also a “valuable right” of a victim, the Supreme Court on Monday set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had kept in abeyance the trial in a murder case.In its order passed in August last year, the high court had also directed the special judge to expedite the proceedings in a case lodged under the provision of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 to satisfy the intent of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 12.

Section 12 of the Gangsters Act pertains to trial by special courts to have precedence.While dealing with an appeal challenging the high court order, the apex court noted that purpose behind Section 12 of the law was not to freeze other proceedings against the accused till proceedings under the Gangsters Act were concluded.

“The purpose was only to indicate that in the event of clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act were to get priority,” a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and Arun Palli said.It said there was one more significant aspect of the matter, and Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to speedy trial.

“This court has held that right to speedy trial is not only the prerogative of the accused but is also a valuable right of the victim and any inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, could have a deleterious effect on the society in general,” the bench noted.The top court said while staying the high court’s order on April 13, it had directed the trial court at Lalitpur to proceed with the trial in the murder case and dispose it of within two months.

It noted that the sessions court has concluded the trial and convicted all the accused under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code apart from other sections.The bench said the appellant, who was the brother of the deceased, had lodged an FIR in September 2023 against nine persons. It was alleged that the appellant’s brother was beaten to death by the accused.

A chargesheet was filed by the police against seven accused.In November 2023, a report was prepared by the station house officer to the effect that the accused had committed the offence as part of a constituted gang and accordingly, a gang chart was prepared and forwarded to the higher authorities.

In January 2024, pursuant to the gang chart, an FIR was lodged under Section 2(b)(i) of the UP Gangsters Act against the accused.In its verdict, the top court noted that in January last year, the seven accused filed an application before the trial court praying to keep the proceedings in the murder case in abeyance on the ground that they were also accused in the proceedings under the Gangsters Act.

The accused had said that trial under the Gangsters Act should have precedence over the trial of any other case against them.The trial court had dismissed the application.Aggrieved by the order, one of the accused moved the high court, which directed that trial in the murder case be kept in abeyance and proceedings in the case under the Gangsters Act be expedited.

The top court referred to Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which deals with power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.”Harmoniously reading Section 12 of the Gangsters Act with Section 346 of the BNSS (Section 309 of the Code), the conclusion is irresistible that all that Section 12 of the Gangsters Act contemplates is that, in the event of a clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act would be given preference,” it said.

The bench said if the interpretation canvassed by the accused was accepted, it would render Section 12 of the Gangsters Act ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution.”It will also give a handle to the accused to delay all other cases under the pretext that the proceedings are pending under the Gangsters Act. Tremendous injustice will result as with every day’s delay, preservation of evidence will become a challenge,” it said.

“Witnesses will be that much less forthcoming and even if they are, with passage of time, human memory would have begun to fade. This court cannot countenance any such interpretation which will make a mockery of the judicial process,” the bench said.Observing that the high court’s order was “completely untenable”, the top court set it aside.