Madras High Court– Expressing concern over the sordid state of affairs in the trial Courts in the State, the division bench of M.Jaichandren and S.Nagamuthu JJ., observed that when an unreasonable request for adjournment or unreasonable request to recall any witness is made and in the event, the trial Court turns down such request, the parties are advised to approach the High Court either under Section 482 CrPC or by way of revision, challenging the said order of the trial Court. The present case illustrates as to how the criminal justice delivery system could be taken for a ride by the unscrupulous men who are parties to the system.
In the instant case, the Court held that the Judge who had conducted the trial had demonstrably exhibited total indifference to his constitutional obligation to do speedy and real justice to the parties. He had allowed the witnesses to be dragged to Court and being harassed for many days. He did not record the reasons as to why the witnesses were again and again put in the witness box. He did not even record as to whether these witnesses were recalled at the instance of the accused or the prosecution. The learned Judge had only exhibited his ignorance in allowing the prosecutor to recall P.W.1 after several months to again examine the witness in chief examination when no new fact was in the hands of the learned public prosecutor to be introduced.
The Court further observed that fair investigation, fair and speedy trial and just verdict are the concomitants of right to life. Such right is not exclusive for the accused. The victim, their family members and the society at large are also entitled to have a fair trial and just verdict. The trial Court should ensure that both the accused and the witnesses, including the victims get a fair deal during trial and ultimately justice triumphs. The Court, after perusal of the facts and relevant case laws held that in order to maintain independence of the judiciary, the Judges should not allow any interference in their independent judicial thinking to do justice which is their Constitutional obligation. [Manikandan v. State, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 2321, decided on 22.04.2016]
