MP HC Emphasizes On The Importance Of S. 309 of CrPC; Directs Trial Court Judges For Strict Compliance Without Fail

FACTS OF THE CASE

• The case is connected with the kidnapping of a seven year old boy. The accused was arrested and jailed since 14.02.2019, under Sections 364-A and 120-B, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
• The chief examination of the victim was conducted by the trial court on 4. 10. 2019 wherein, the boy had put his finger against the accused persons. Later, the date of cross examination was fixed on 13.11.2019, however, the same was actually conducted on 18.12.2019.
• During the cross-examination, the boy twisted his stand and failed to support the prosecution. Concerning his earlier statement, he reasonedthat he was afraid of the police that had led him to admit the prosecution.
• The accused had filed several bail applications before the Madhya Pradesh High Court that faced consequent dismissals. The concerned bail application was the fourth one.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

• The accused was represented by Senior Advocate P. K. Saxena, who firmly stood by the testimony of the victim during the cross examination.
• Advocate Saxena submitted that the victim had supported the prosecution after being directed by the Police, since the seven year old victim was afraid of the authorities.
• He also submitted that the prosecution was also not supported by other witnesses in the case.

COURT’S ORDER

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that it was “not inclined” to admit the bail plea and directed the trial court to pass the final judgement.
• The Bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar further pointed out the trial court’s non-conformity of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that mandates courts to complete trails expeditiously.
• The delay in conducting the cross examination by more than two months indicated that “the boy was won over by the accused persons in the meantime”, the Court had observed.
• Realising the importance of speedy trials, the learned Judge had directed all the trial court judges to comply with the provisions of Section 309 of the Code, especially in cases involving sensitive issues, including murder, rape, and kidnapping.

IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE

• Right to speedy trial has been made a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, it is important for the Courts to preserve it as an obligation.
• The order passed by Justice Abhyankar can be viewed as an important step towards ensuring compliance of this constitutional mandate, which has also been consolidated under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

What are your views on the Court’s observations?