The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

NEWS AND VIEWS

PUNJAB

HARYANA

JAMMU & KASHMIR

HIMACHAL

REGIONAL BRIEFS

NATION

OPINIONS

LETTERS

BUSINESS

SPORTS

WORLD

SPECIAL COVERAGE

CHANDIGARH

LUDHIANA

DELHI

THE TRIBUNE SPECIALS

50 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE

TERCENTENARY CELEBRATIONS

M A I N N E W S

SC: Rape trials must end in two months
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, December 26
At a time when the nation-wide demand for fast track courts (FTCs) to hold expeditious trial of rape cases has reached a crescendo, the Supreme Court has noted that even under the existing laws the trial courts were bound to hold day-to-day hearings and complete the trial in such cases within two months.

Under Sections 376 to 376D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 dealing with rape, “the inquiry or trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months from the date of commencement of the examination of witnesses,” a Bench comprising Justices Swatanter Kumar and Fakkir Mohammed Ibrahim Kalifulla has pointed out.

Further, under Section 309 CrPC, once the trial had commenced “the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible” and particularly after the examination of witnesses had begun “the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined.”

Not just this. The SC and various high courts were time and again reminding the trial courts not to delay the hearing of heinous criminal cases, the apex court Bench noted.

Existing legal provisions clearly mandated that trial courts could adjourn the hearing in such cases only under unavoidable circumstances and that too after recording the reasons in each order.

Also, “when the witnesses are in attendance no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.” Citing a 2001 apex court verdict (State of UP vs Shambhu Nath Singh & others), the Bench said: “We make it clear the legislature has frowned at granting adjournments...to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. At any rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a special reason for bypassing the mandate of Section 309 CrPC.”

The Bench also made it clear that trial courts could not blame the poor infrastructure facilities for avoiding the deadline set for completion of trial.

In another verdict in 1998 (Rajdeo Sharma vs. State of Bihar), the SC had directed the HCs to take note of the conduct of the trial judges violating the legislative mandate on deadlines and take administrative action against the “delinquent” judicial officers, the Bench noted.

The Bench directed the court registry to forward a copy of its judgment to all the HCs to remind the trial courts to strictly follow the instructions in the 1998 and 2001 SC verdicts on the issue at least from now on. The SC verdict had come in a criminal case from Delhi just days before the gang rape of the 23-year-old physiotherapy student in the city on December 15.