SC deprecates ‘dilatory techniques’ adopted by events in loss of life penalty case

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday strongly deprecated the “dilatory tactics” adopted by the events and their advocates for “deflecting the course of justice” in a homicide case, the place seven of the convicts have been awarded loss of life sentence.

The prime court docket dismissed an enchantment filed by a convict difficult the Madras High Court order by which it had refused to attend for the paperwork relied upon within the investigation, which they’d sought from the investigating officer of the case and requested the events to proceed with the listening to.

A bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat mentioned, “We are of the opinion that the circumstances in which the request was made through the letter after appeal was set down for hearing despite repeated opportunities was not justified.” 

“The appellant could have sought recourse by filing an appropriate application, in accordance with the procedures set out, well in time. We, therefore, agree that the appeal made at this late stage appears to be to prolong the hearing. In these circumstances, the court declines to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed,” the bench mentioned.

Justice Bela M Trivedi, who was additionally a part of the bench, took a strict view and mentioned, “Such a dilatory tactics adopted by the parties and their advocates and thereby deflecting the course of justice in the cases like the present one, where some of the appellant-accused are facing the death penalty and some sentence of life imprisonment are strongly deprecated.” 

Justice Trivedi, in a separate however concurring order, acknowledged that it’s evidently that the loss of life penalty instances referred by the classes courts to the excessive court docket should be given utmost precedence and must be heard and accomplished by the excessive court docket as expeditiously as attainable and ideally inside six months.

She mentioned that from the observations made by the excessive court docket within the impugned order, which have remained unchallenged earlier than this court docket, it was solely due to the non-cooperation on behalf of the counsels showing for the accused, the excessive court docket was not in a position to hear the reference case.

“The court may not have to remind the senior advocates of their duties to assist the courts for the cause of justice, and not to indulge into dilatory tactics and hamper the cause of justice,” Justice Trivedi mentioned.

The bench recorded the sequence of occasion, noting that City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai for the offences punishable beneath Section 120-B, 109, 341, 302 learn with part 34 of IPC had awarded loss of life penalty to seven convicts and one was awarded life sentence.

The classes court docket had referred its judgement and order to the excessive court docket for affirmation of the loss of life penalty awarded to among the accused beneath Section 366 CrPC. The accused additionally had filed separate 9 appeals earlier than the excessive court docket difficult the judgement and order handed by the classes court docket within the mentioned case.

The apex court docket mentioned that the excessive court docket after ascertaining the comfort of all of the advocates showing for the events had mounted the date for ultimate listening to on June 15, 2022 vide the order dated April 27, 2022.

Justice Trivedi mentioned, “On September 14, though the state public prosecutor was ready to argue, one of the senior advocates from Delhi appeared before the high court and requested the court to adjourn the hearing.” 

She famous that at the moment, the state public prosecutor drew the eye of the excessive court docket to a letter dated September 5, 2022 despatched by advocate G Sriram showing for the accused addressed to the Inspector (Law and Order) Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai, asking him to provide sure paperwork, stating therein inter-alia that the mentioned paperwork had been required for truthful adjudication of their case within the mild of the Supreme Court’s determination (in case of Manoj and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh, May 20, 2022).

Justice Trivedi mentioned, “The said letter was placed on record by the state public prosecutor. On the said date i.e., September 14, 2022, the senior advocate who had come from Delhi assured the court that she had discussed with all the counsels who were appearing for the appellants and that all had assured her that they would proceed with the hearing on October 17, 2022.” 

The bench famous that the excessive court docket apprised her (senior advocate from Delhi) that the case pertained to the sentence of loss of life penalty, which needed to be accomplished inside six months and that for the final one yr there was no progress within the case on account of non-cooperation of the accused.

“However, she (lawyer from Delhi) repeatedly assured the court that no one would seek adjournment on October 17, 2022, and therefore the high court out of sheer courtesy and respect for the senior advocate adjourned the case to October 17, 2022,” it mentioned.

The bench mentioned that regardless of such assurance having been given by the senior advocate and all different advocates, together with different senior advocates showing for the opposite accused, to the excessive court docket to proceed with the listening to of the reference case and the appeals, the appellant rushed to this court docket to hamper the listening to mounted earlier than the excessive court docket on October 17, 2022.

“In the aforesaid premises, the attempt made on behalf of the appellant-accused and the other accused to delay the hearing of the appeals and the death reference case pending before the high court, under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from the investigating officer was absolutely reprehensible,” it mentioned.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday strongly deprecated the “dilatory tactics” adopted by the events and their advocates for “deflecting the course of justice” in a homicide case, the place seven of the convicts have been awarded loss of life sentence.

The prime court docket dismissed an enchantment filed by a convict difficult the Madras High Court order by which it had refused to attend for the paperwork relied upon within the investigation, which they’d sought from the investigating officer of the case and requested the events to proceed with the listening to.

A bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat mentioned, “We are of the opinion that the circumstances in which the request was made through the letter after appeal was set down for hearing despite repeated opportunities was not justified.” 

“The appellant could have sought recourse by filing an appropriate application, in accordance with the procedures set out, well in time. We, therefore, agree that the appeal made at this late stage appears to be to prolong the hearing. In these circumstances, the court declines to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed,” the bench mentioned.

Justice Bela M Trivedi, who was additionally a part of the bench, took a strict view and mentioned, “Such a dilatory tactics adopted by the parties and their advocates and thereby deflecting the course of justice in the cases like the present one, where some of the appellant-accused are facing the death penalty and some sentence of life imprisonment are strongly deprecated.” 

Justice Trivedi, in a separate however concurring order, acknowledged that it’s evidently that the loss of life penalty instances referred by the classes courts to the excessive court docket should be given utmost precedence and must be heard and accomplished by the excessive court docket as expeditiously as attainable and ideally inside six months.

She mentioned that from the observations made by the excessive court docket within the impugned order, which have remained unchallenged earlier than this court docket, it was solely due to the non-cooperation on behalf of the counsels showing for the accused, the excessive court docket was not in a position to hear the reference case.

“The court may not have to remind the senior advocates of their duties to assist the courts for the cause of justice, and not to indulge into dilatory tactics and hamper the cause of justice,” Justice Trivedi mentioned.

The bench recorded the sequence of occasion, noting that City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai for the offences punishable beneath Section 120-B, 109, 341, 302 learn with part 34 of IPC had awarded loss of life penalty to seven convicts and one was awarded life sentence.

The classes court docket had referred its judgement and order to the excessive court docket for affirmation of the loss of life penalty awarded to among the accused beneath Section 366 CrPC. The accused additionally had filed separate 9 appeals earlier than the excessive court docket difficult the judgement and order handed by the classes court docket within the mentioned case.

The apex court docket mentioned that the excessive court docket after ascertaining the comfort of all of the advocates showing for the events had mounted the date for ultimate listening to on June 15, 2022 vide the order dated April 27, 2022.

Justice Trivedi mentioned, “On September 14, though the state public prosecutor was ready to argue, one of the senior advocates from Delhi appeared before the high court and requested the court to adjourn the hearing.” 

She famous that at the moment, the state public prosecutor drew the eye of the excessive court docket to a letter dated September 5, 2022 despatched by advocate G Sriram showing for the accused addressed to the Inspector (Law and Order) Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai, asking him to provide sure paperwork, stating therein inter-alia that the mentioned paperwork had been required for truthful adjudication of their case within the mild of the Supreme Court’s determination (in case of Manoj and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh, May 20, 2022).

Justice Trivedi mentioned, “The said letter was placed on record by the state public prosecutor. On the said date i.e., September 14, 2022, the senior advocate who had come from Delhi assured the court that she had discussed with all the counsels who were appearing for the appellants and that all had assured her that they would proceed with the hearing on October 17, 2022.” 

The bench famous that the excessive court docket apprised her (senior advocate from Delhi) that the case pertained to the sentence of loss of life penalty, which needed to be accomplished inside six months and that for the final one yr there was no progress within the case on account of non-cooperation of the accused.

“However, she (lawyer from Delhi) repeatedly assured the court that no one would seek adjournment on October 17, 2022, and therefore the high court out of sheer courtesy and respect for the senior advocate adjourned the case to October 17, 2022,” it mentioned.

The bench mentioned that regardless of such assurance having been given by the senior advocate and all different advocates, together with different senior advocates showing for the opposite accused, to the excessive court docket to proceed with the listening to of the reference case and the appeals, the appellant rushed to this court docket to hamper the listening to mounted earlier than the excessive court docket on October 17, 2022.

“In the aforesaid premises, the attempt made on behalf of the appellant-accused and the other accused to delay the hearing of the appeals and the death reference case pending before the high court, under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from the investigating officer was absolutely reprehensible,” it mentioned.