Aastha Thakur
Published on: 28 August 2022 at 20:01 IST
The Supreme Court has reiterated that “it is the duty of the prosecution to ensure that the prosecution witnesses are available and it is the duty of the trial Court to ensure that none of the parties is permitted to protract the trial,” noting that the time lag between the incident, the examination of witnesses, and the trial creates its own problems in the testimony of the witnesses, more so, the eye witnesses.
The bail request of one of the accused was being heard before the bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and M. M. Sundresh in relation to an incident that occurred on November 17, 2015, almost seven years ago.
In that incident, two assailants entered the mayor’s office in the Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh while wearing masks and a pistol, trespassed into the mayor’s chambers during the day, and then killed the mayor by shooting her.
The attackers fled the site after threatening the officials. The trial is already underway, and charges have already been filed.
The Bench noted the “role assigned to the appellant before us is that he was sitting besides the driver in the vehicle where the assailants escaped”,
Further the bench remarked that, “We are troubled by the fact that seven years after the incident the prosecution witnesses have not been examined and the trial is yet to commence. This is completely unacceptable. Time lag creates its own problems in the testimony of the witnesses more so the eye witnesses more so the eye witnesses”.
It is underlined by the Bench that, “It is the duty of the prosecution to ensure that the prosecution witnesses are available and it is the duty of the trial Court to ensure that none of the parties is permitted to protract the trial.”
“ We are thus, of the view that the trial Court must control the dilatory tactics of any of the parties and all steps must be taken to ensure that post trial, the judgment of the trial Court is available within a period of one year from the date of the communication of this order”
The bench was inclined to release the appellant on bail, noting that the appellant would have to appear personally before the trial court on all dates and would assist in the trial, and that if the trial court determines that the appellant is attempting to delay the trial or is later found to be tampering with the evidence, the trial court may cancel the bail and put the appellant back in custody.