Khushi Doshi
Published on: April 12, 2022 at 20:40 IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that the Matter can be remanded back to the Trial Court for Trial even if there is a Delay, and that the Accused cannot be protected from all Prejudicial effects under the Right to a Speedy Trial unless actual Prejudice is proven.
The Police filed a Charge sheet under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 392 (Punishment for robbery), Section 307 (Punishment for attempted murder), Section 341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint), and Section 506 (Punishment for wrongful restraint) (Punishment for criminal intimidation).
The matter had been taken up by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Because the Witnesses refused to be Cross-Examined, the Magistrate acquitted the Accused of the Charges laid.
The De Facto Complainant, who was dissatisfied with the Judgement, filed an Appeal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Appellate Court granted the Appeal, observing that the Trial Court did not disregard the Evidence of Witnesses recorded in Chief, and that the Trial Judge should have taken the Chief Examination into account in reaching a decision. The Appellate Court remanded the Case back to the Trial Court to allow the Prosecution to present its Case.
Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao cited the Supreme Court decision in State of Rajasthan Vs. Ikbal Hussen, (2004), which held that the Right to a Speedy Trial does not protect an Accused from all Prejudicial Effects of delay. The mere possibility of Prejudice is insufficient; actual Prejudice must be demonstrated. As a result, the Court declined to interfere with the Appellate Court’s decision and Dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition.
