Expresses Concern Over Forty Four Year Delay In Murder Case Against
The of India has sharply criticized the systemic failures leading to a staggering 44-year delay in a involving a and subsequent . A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued a stern notice, seeking comprehensive reports from the and the regarding the exhaustive time taken to conclude these proceedings.
A Timeline of Institutional Lapses
The matter concerns the , Simon Soren, who was accused of murder in an incident dating back to . According to the records, the did not reach a verdict until —a period of 22 years for a single trial. Following his , the moved the , which took another 22 years to decide the , only delivering the final judgment in .
The bench expressed significant frustration over these , specifically noting that the 's statement under was recorded as early as , yet the trial remained pending for eight more years thereafter.
Arguments and 's Health
During the hearing, counsel for the highlighted the dire circumstances of the accused. Now 70 years of age, the is currently suffering from various and is confined to a jail hospital. The has directed the hospital authorities to provide a detailed report regarding his ailments and the quality of medical care he is receiving within the prison facility.
Key Observations from the Bench
The did not mince words regarding the institutional apathy displayed in this case. Highlighting the gravity of the situation, the bench remarked:
-
"It is very disturbing to note that although the incident is of the year yet the judgment and order passed by the holding the guilty of the alleged crime is of the year ."
-
"We fail to understand, why it took 22 years for the to complete the trial."
-
"Even the took 22 years to decide the preferred by the ... This delay highlighted above is something very disturbing."
Directives for the Future
The has ordered the State and the High Court to file comprehensive reports explaining the cause of these extraordinary delays. The court emphasized that such a lapse in the is unacceptable. The matter is set for further hearing on , where the court will evaluate the reports and decide on the next course of action to ensure that justice, though delayed by decades, is not further compromised.
This intervention underscores the Judiciary's commitment to holding institutions accountable for procedural efficiency and protecting the of litigants to a timely trial.