Trial Court, Gujarat High Court, State Prosecution to blame for failure of justice in 1992 Riot case, SC

In judgment passed yesterday, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Jasti Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishen Kaul castigated the concerned trial Courts, the Gujarat High Court and the State prosecution for serious lapses in the investigation and trial of a 1992 riot case..The Bench noted,.“If in a case like the one on hand where three people were killed and more than five people were injured, if charges are not framed in accordance with the mandate of law, the blame must be squarely taken by both the bar and the bench.”.However, despite observing that there is a failure of justice in this case, the Court refrained from ordering a retrial given that over 26 years had lapsed since the incident took place. This was given the Court’s view that to order a retrial would serve no purpose at this juncture. Further, it was noted,.“We are not sure of the availability of the witnesses at this point of time. Even if all the witnesses are available, how safe it would be to record their evidence after a quarter century and place reliance on the same for coming to a gist conclusion regarding the culpability of the accused?”.Case Background.The alleged acts of rioting by the seventeen accused in the case were said to have resulted in the death of three persons, besides injuring over five others. The trial took place in two courts..One Sessions Court tried fifteen of the accused, of which four were found guilty for various offences. Another trial Court tried two more accused, who were initially absconding. Both of them were eventually acquitted..Appeals preferred in the case by the State, the accused as well as the original complainant were clubbed together and disposed of by the Gujarat High Court in 2004. The Supreme Court in turn was called to decide on appeals filed against the High Court verdict..Supreme Court judgement.To its dismay, the Supreme Court noted that there were serious procedural lapses on the part of the lower courts, in addition to a failure to appreciate the proper application of legal provisions regarding ‘unlawful assembly’ and allied offences. The Bench remarked,.“An examination of the record in these appeals left us in distress. The judgments of the Sessions Courts as well as the High Court leave too much to be desired.“.The various shortcomings on the part of the Sessions Courts included, inter alia,.disregard for the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in framing criminal charges,omnibus accusations,deficiencies in findings of factwholly unsubstantiated legal analysis and appreciation of evidence (particularly with regard to attributing vicarious liability in terms of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code).Moreover, instead correcting the course of the case, it was noted that the High Court had completely failed to take note of the defects in framing of the charges. The High Court judgement itself was criticised for various other defects besides..Ultimately, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the findings of the lower courts could be reversed for the various errors committed by them..The question was framed and answered by the Court thus,.“The question is whether this court would be justified in reversing the finding of acquittal in the case on hand on the grounds that (i) the framing of charges is egregiously erroneous and not in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC; or (ii) the courts below failed to record appropriate findings with respect to the various offences which the accused are said to have committed; or (iii) the 1st appellate court’s reasoning in declining to reverse a finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is defective? .The answer to the question, in our opinion should be in the negative.”.The Bench noted that ideally, it should have ordered a retrial, given the facts and circumstances of the case..“For all the abovementioned reasons, we should have recorded a conclusion that there is a failure of justice in the case on hand looked at from the point of view of either the victims or even from the point of view of the convicted accused. .The most normal consequence thereafter should have been to order a fresh trial… “.However, as noted above, the Court opined that such a measure would serve no purpose given the time lapse of 26 years..“…but such a course of action after a lapse of 26 years of the occurrence of the crime, in our opinion, would not serve any useful purpose because as already indicated some of the accused have died in the interregnum.”.In these circumstances, the Court took the view that the only course of action available before them was to compensate the victims of the crime. The Court has therefore awarded public law damages, following the principles laid down in Nilabati Behehra’s case..An amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was ordered to be paid to the families of the deceased. A sum of Rs 10 lakhs was directed to be paid for the benefit of the injured witnesses..State, the Bar and the Bench all share blame in the failure of justice.Before parting with the case, the Court also emphasised that the blame was not restricted to the Bench alone when it comes to the failure of justice in this case. As remarked in the judgment,.“This case, in our opinion, is a classic illustration of how the State failed in its primary constitutional responsibility of maintaining law and order by its ineffectiveness in the enforcement of criminal law.”.The reasons quoted for such failure included an inefficient system of criminal investigation, corruption or political influence in investigation, inefficient public prosecutors, lawyers and the judiciary, all of which was opined to have contributed to the overall decline in the efficiency in the dispensation of criminal justice..With particular reference to public prosecutors, the Court noted,.“Over a period of time lot of irrelevant and unwarranted considerations have crept into the selection and appointment process of Public Prosecutors all over the country.”.With these observations, the present appeals were disposed of by the Bench in the above terms.Read the judgment below: