14-year wait: HC raps judicial, legal aid failures as man serves entire sentence before acquittal

Fourteen years after a youngster was convicted by a Yamunanagar court in a rape case and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted him of all charges — tragically, only after he had already served his entire sentence.

The protracted 14-year delay has now prompted the Bench to issue a sharp admonition of both the judicial system and the High Court Legal Services Committee. Disturbed by the failure to secure timely justice, the court has also referred the matter to the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action in similar cases.

Making it clear that the matter was manifestation of an unacceptable lapse that shocked the court’s conscience, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted, “Before parting with this judgment, this court finds it necessary to take note of the protracted delay in this case as it is a matter of profound concern.”

The Bench took note of the fact that the appellant, a poor labourer who could not engage a private counsel due to lack of resources, had pinned his hopes on legal aid while filing the appeal in 2010, but the system turned a blind eye despite his legal right to timely justice.

“The counsel for the appellant moved an application for suspension of sentence in 2012, but the same was dismissed. The Registry was directed to list the appeal within six months, but it is deeply troubling that no further action was taken,” Justice Brar asserted.

The Bench observed that the High Court Legal Services Committee, too, failed to take appropriate steps to secure a hearing for the release of the appellant. The matter was finally listed out of turn, on a priority basis, since the appellant was still languishing in jail.

“His appeal is finally heard in 2024, after a lapse of 14 years, and has led to his acquittal, but tragically, by now, he has already served the entirety of his sentence. This delay has highlighted an unacceptable lapse in securing the ends of justice which has gravely undermined the appellant's personal liberty and has shocked the conscience of this court,” Justice Brar asserted.

Referring to the facts of the case, Justice Brar observed the girl was found to be four to five months pregnant. But the circumstances indicate that the appellant and the prosecutrix were in a consensual relationship. As such, the factum of pregnancy would not assist the prosecution “by any stretch of imagination”.  As such, the court was of the considered opinion that the prosecution case failed to meet “objective standards of reason”.

Before concluding the case, Justice Brar called for reform. “Let the matter be put up before the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action, he may deem necessary, in similar cases,” the court asserted, urging a review of similar cases to prevent such miscarriages of justice from repeating.