Merely because an accused is elected representative cannot be a testament to their image among the general public: SC on withdrawal of prosecution of a gruesome crime
On July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India held that the matter of a gruesome crime of double murder does not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground that the accused is an elected representative. The bench also said that being an elected representative cannot be a testament to their image among people. The SC bench constitution Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma were hearing the Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. case where it set aside the order of the Trial court permitting Uttar Pradesh Police to withdraw the prosecution against Ex-BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party) MLA Chhote Singh in the 1994 double-murder case. During the proceedings, the SC also expressed concern over the undue influence of powerful individuals affecting cases.
The operative part of the judgment reads, “Considering the material on record and the political influence of accused Chhote Singh and the Trial Court’s casual approach towards the accusations against the then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly in allowing withdrawal of his prosecution, this court is of the opinion that merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the general public. Matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder in the present case do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation. Contrary to the Trial Court’s view, such withdrawal cannot be said to be allowed in public interest. This reasoning cannot be accepted especially in cases of involvement of influential people.”
The SC bench observed, “The judicial system of our country often finds itself grappling with the pervasive issues of prolonged delay and suspected political influence within the legal proceedings. The present case highlights the alarming trend where cases, particularly those involving influential figures, face significant delays, obstructing the administration of justice. The undue influence wielded by powerful individuals further exacerbates the situation, raising concerns about fairness and impartiality. This underscores the urgent need to address systemic flaws and ensure timely resolution of legal disputes.” It also highlighted the alarming trend of judicial delays, “The judicial system of our country often finds itself grappling with the pervasive issues of prolonged delay and suspected political influence within the legal proceedings.”
The bench also criticized the Allahabad High Court for granting repeated adjournments in the matter. It said, “...the High Court in repeatedly allowing the adjournment requests has only allowed the accused persons to deploy dilatory tactics to delay their trial and have failed to ensure that the justice system is set in motion and is not halted due to the lamentable specter
of political influence.” After hearing the matter, the SC ordered to set aside the withdrawal of prosecution of accused Chhote Singh as allowed by the Trial Court.
