Why this defeating delay in justice –Supreme Court – The Pioneer –16.12.11

A criminal trial for 36 years and still  showing no sign of comp l e t  ion ha s  made   t h e Supreme Court sit up and take notice of how justice in  some matters is not only being delayed, but defeated. With 31 out of 39 witnesses in the case dead, four  lawyers appearing for the accused having expired during the pendency of the case and 22 presiding  officers hearing the case been changed, the apex court on Thursday couldn’t but help wonder aloud,  What is the reason for the delay?” S  e n i o r   a d v o  c a t e   T R Andhyarujina, appearing for one of the  accused Ranjan Dwivedi, said, “He (Dwivedi) was 27-year-old when he was charged for the murder of  hen Railway Minister LN Mishra in Samastipur (Bihar) on January 2, 1975. Today he is 64 years and has  suffered a stroke recently.” The other accused is Sudhevanand Avadhoot.  The accused had moved the  apex court to show how the incident, despite being a highprofile matter, was dragged on due to the fault  f the CBI. The Bench of Justices HL Dattu and CK Prasad agreed to issue notice to CBI and Centre to  examine the “lapses” on part of the prosecution. Ironically, in 1979, the Supreme Court itself had directed day-to-day hearing in the case to ensure speedy trial. But despite 32 years since then, the CBI has failed to complete the evidence stage.  An  app l i c at  ion  mov e d recently by the agency claimed it had additional evidence in the case,  ndhyarujina said, suggesting “This is a shocking travesty of speedy trial.” Although the accused are out  n  ail since 1978, their demand to stay the prosecution proceedings was denied by the ap e x   cour  t .   ndhy a r uj ina pointed out that an expert committee headed by former B  om b  a y   H C   j u d g e   V M Tarkunde had examined the case and held the trial to be f a r c  e .   T h e   r e  p  o r  t   o f   t  h e C  omm                       m i t t  e  d   o n February 15, 1979 recommended a fresh probe finding that the witnesses in the case in no manner could be expected to prove the charges leveled against the accused.  But the bench said,  We will not stay proceedings without finding who is at fault.” It, however, posted the matter for he  ar  ing    mmedi ately   af  te r   four weeks.