"Abuse Of This System": Supreme Court Imposes 1L Cost On Police Constable Accused Of Killing His Wife For 'Dragging Trial' Over 14 Years

"You have successfully dragged a case for 14 years, a murder case where you were accused of killing your wife and came twice to Supreme Court. This is an atrocious case! This is misuse, abuse of this system." CJI remarked.

A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Surya Kant was hearing special leave petition filed by the police constable against the Uttarakhand High Court's order refusing to entertain his application for recording his statement again, and refusing to quash the Trial Court's order dated 10.02.2020.

The High Court had also noted in its impugned order that it was only a delaying tactic on part of the accused for wanting to examine himself under Section 313 Cr.PC, even after his statements were recorded in 2013.

During the hearing today, when the Bench was informed that the petitioner accused is a police constable, CJI Ramana remarked that "You have to be removed forthwith from service and be sent to jail without a minute's waiting."

The Bench noted that in 2021, the accused again wants to record the statement under Section 313 which was recorded way back in 2013.

In response to the Counsel's statement that the petitioner has stumbled upon a new document, Justice Surya Kant said that "After 5 years you will remember something else, so again it will be recorded?"

The present petitioner has been accused of offences under Sections 302, 304 B, 201, 234 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

While passing the impugned order, the High Court had noted that the session's trial in the applicant's case has been pending since the year 2008. The accused again wanted to examine himself under Section 313 Cr.PC even after his statements were recorded in 2013, which was nothing but a mere delaying tactic.

The High Court had observed that,

"Law will not help those who want to procrastinate the proceedings of the Sessions Trial. Dilly Dallying is not permissible. Undue delay in disposal of Sessions Trial is uncalled for. One cannot take a plea under the garb of defence evidence that one can prolong the proceedings of any Sessions Trial till the period one wants to keep the same pending."

The High Court had therefore held that the trial court had rightly rejected the applicant's application. As per the High Court, the trial court had rightly come to the conclusion that the object of filing such application is only to prolong the decision of the Sessions Trial, which is not permissible in law.

The accused had previously also moved an application before the Trial Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. stating that some important defence witnesses are required to be examined, in order to prove certain documents, which was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by that order, the applicant filed another application before the High Court which was dismissed again in 2017.

The accused had then approached the Supreme Court which also decided to dismiss the same through its order dated 08.11.2019.