Right To Speedy Trial Does Not Protect An Accused From All Prejudicial Effects Caused By Delay: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that the matter can be remanded back to trial Court for trial of the case even if there is delay and the accused cannot be protected from all prejudicial effects under the right to speedy trial unless actual prejudice has been proved."Its core concern is impairment of liberty. Possibility of prejudice is not enough. Actual...
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that the matter can be remanded back to trial Court for trial of the case even if there is delay and the accused cannot be protected from all prejudicial effects under the right to speedy trial unless actual prejudice has been proved.
"Its core concern is impairment of liberty. Possibility of prejudice is not enough. Actual prejudice has to be proved."
The police filed charge sheet under various provisions of Indian Penal Code viz. Section 392 (punishment for robbery), Section 307 (punishment for attempt to murder), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation).
The court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class had taken cognizance of the same. As the witnesses failed to undergo cross-examination, the Magistrate acquitted the accused for the offences charge sheeted.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the de facto complainant filed the appeal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The appellate Court allowed the appeal and observed that the trial Court has not eschewed the evidence of witness which was recorded in chief and further stated that for disposition of judgment, the trial judge ought to have taken the chief examination into consideration. The appellate Court remanded back the matter to the trial Court for giving an opportunity to prosecution.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the appellate Court, the Criminal Revision Case was filed by petitioners/accused.
The petitioner submitted that the trial Court had given several opportunities and issued Bailable Warrants to Witnesses by following the provision of Section 350 of Criminal Procedure Code. With no other alternative, the trial Court acquitted the accused and dismissed the complaint.
Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao relied on the Apex Court decision in State of Rajasthan v. Ikbal Hussen, (2004) in which it was held that right to speedy trial does not protect an accused from all prejudicial effects caused by delay. Possibility of prejudice is not enough and actual prejudice has to be proved.
The Court hence declined to interfere with the order of the appellate court and dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition.
Case Title : CY.Pratap Reddy Versus State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 55