FSL Can't Delay Forensic Reports Citing Dearth Of Staff Or Lack Of Infrastructure, High Time To Ensure Emphasis Is Maintained On Right To Speedy Trial: Kerala HC

The petitioner, a native of West Bengal, with no roots in Kerala, was an accused in a murder case and has approached the Kerala High Court seeking bail due to a delay in commencing the trial. The Court found that the trial had not commenced due to the delay on the part of the FSL in submitting the scientific reports on material objects.

Justice C S Dias stated that the right to speedy and fair trial of the accused was guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it has to be ensured that facilities for the dispensation of justice are put in place.

“Investigation Agencies now heavily depend on scientific evidence and technology for the investigation of crimes. In these times, we cannot put our hands in the air and cry about the dearth of staff and lack of infrastructure. With the alarming and exponential increase in crimes in recent years, it is high time that we ensure that facilities for the dispensation of justice are put in place, especially when the entitlement of the accused to a speedy trial has been emphasised by the Supreme Court be implicit in the spectrum of Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, he added. 

Facts

The petitioner was accused of a crime registered under Section 302 of the IPC and has been in judicial custody since October 2019. The allegation was that the petitioner stabbed to death a fellow native and committed the offense of murder.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was innocent and that there was no evidence against him. It was argued that he was the sole breadwinner of his family and was in judicial custody for over four years and three months. It was submitted that the trial had not commenced and that he should be released on bail.

On the other hand, the respondents contended that if he was released on bail, he would likely flee from justice and his presence would not be secured for trial.

The Court found that charges were not framed against the petitioner even though the case was before the Sessions Court since the report and properties after scientific evaluation were not received from the FSL. The Court suo moto impleaded the Director of the FSL and directed him to file an affidavit regarding the inordinate delay in obtaining scientific reports on material objects.

The Director in his affidavit stated that the delay was due to the pendency of a high volume of requisitions in about 3549 POCSO cases and from other Fast Track Courts. The Director added that there was also a shortage of staff in the FSL.

The Court noted that the jurisdictional Magistrate and the former investigating officer had sent reminders to the FSL regarding the scientific reports.

Further, it stated that under the law, no distinction was made among the accused, whether under the POSCO Act or the IPC, their ethnicity, financial status, or origin. An accused is an accused, irrespective of the offence or their background, it said.

Verdict

The Court noted that a delay on the part of the FSL being taken as a defense by the accused in obtaining bail would be detrimental to the public interest and reiterated that paucity of funds or lack of resources was not grounds to delay the constitutional obligation of dispensing speedy justice.

Relying upon Kadra Pehadiya and Others v. State of Bihar (1981), the Court quoted the words of Justice P N Bhagawati thus: “ How can a civilised society tolerate a legal and judicial system, which keeps a person in jail for three years without commencing his trial, but the atrocity does not end here; more is yet to come.”

In making these observations the Court, however, dismissed the bail application of the petitioner since he hailed from West Bengal and chances were that he would flee on obtaining bail.

The Court also directed the Director of FSL to prioritize the analysis and reporting of material objects submitted for scientific reports in precedence to other matters.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocate N.B.Fathima Sulfath

Counsel for the Respondents: Additional Director General of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose, Senior Public Prosecutor C K Suresh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 95

Case title: SANJAY ORAON

Case number: BAIL APPL. NO. 11291 OF 2023