N.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 20.3.1998 in Criminal Case No. 1639 of 1995, State v. Gorakh Nath and Ors. under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, passed by the I Ind Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the State and have perused the record. This is a revision filed by the complainant Indra Mani Pandey against the order dated 20.3.1998, by which the accused have been acquitted when the prosecution could not examine a number of witnesses. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Rang Bahadur, and P.W. 2 Rajendra Prasad Pandey. Sufficient opportunity was given to produce injured Jai Jai Ram Pandey and the complainant. When the prosecution could not produce the entire evidence, the prosecution evidence was closed and after recording the statement of the accused, the judgment was pronounced. According to the impugned order, two witnesses examined are not the witnesses of the nearby locality and since both are chance witnesses and no neighbouring witness has been examined, the trial court did not find sufficient evidence to prove the charges levelled against the accused -persons. It is against this order of closing the evidence without examining Indra Mani Pandey, Jai Jai Ram Pandey, Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer, the complainant of the case Indra Mani Pandey has preferred this revision.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and on a perusal of the record, it appears that the charges were framed on 3.1.1985 and since this date upto the date of the impugned order, several dates were fixed for evidence. Summons could not be served, witnesses were not available and when the witnesses appeared, they were not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the closing of the evidence cannot be said to be improper. The trial remained pending from 10.9.1984 to the date 20.3.1998, when the accused were acquitted after closure of the prosecution evidence. In this way, the trial remained pending for a period of near about 14 years. The offences were punishable with an imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. The accused are entitled to the speedy trial. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the accused is entitled to speedy trial. Though the right of speedy trial is not enumerated as a fundamental right in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has recognised the same to be implicit in the spectrum of Article 21. In the State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah (1981) 3 SCC 610, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the fact that the prosecution would in some cases deliberately adopt the delaying tactics to keep the accused in jail as long as possible and to harass them particularly when the evidence is of a weak character and conviction is not a probable result. In Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R. S. Nayak : (1992) 1 SCC 225, it was held by the Supreme Court that fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. In Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1999 (1) ACR 137 (SC):, 1998 SCC 1692, the Supreme Court held that where the offence is punishable with an imprisonment for punishment not exceeding 7 years whether the accused in jail or not, the Court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period and the Court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case.;