In a significant legal development, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a 44-year-old murder case against a 68-year-old man, Chandrashekara Bhat, deeming that proceeding with the trial would be futile.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to June 8, 1979, when an incident occurred involving the respondent, Narayana Nair P, and his father, who heard a disturbance in their courtyard. Upon investigation, they encountered two individuals, Seetharama Bhat and Kitta, who had allegedly trespassed into their property. The intruders reportedly attacked Narayana Nair, stabbing him in the chest and back, and also assaulted another individual, Kunhirama, by stabbing him in the neck. Tragically, Kunhirama succumbed to his injuries after being transported to the hospital. Subsequently, the police registered a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including charges for unlawful assembly, rioting, criminal trespass, attempted murder, grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, and murder. The petitioner, Chandrashekara Bhat, was listed as accused number three in this case.
Proceedings and Observations
During the initial trial, the court convicted the primary accused, Seetharama Bhat and Kitta, while acquitting two others, Sanjeeva Handa and Basava Handa, who were similarly placed as the petitioner, with no overt acts alleged against them. The petitioner contended that he was neither arrested by the police nor received any summons, asserting that he was unaware of the proceedings against him. He further claimed that at 68 years of age, he was being pursued by the police to undergo trial in a split-up case, despite being labeled as absconding during the original trial.
Upon reviewing the records and the trial court's decision to acquit the other similarly placed accused, the High Court noted that the individuals who were convicted had already completed their sentences and were released from prison. The court observed that the petitioner had been living without any criminal antecedents for over four decades, and initiating a trial at this juncture would serve no meaningful purpose.
Court's Decision
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, remarked that allowing the trial to proceed would be an exercise in futility, especially given the improbability of a conviction after such an extended period. The court emphasized that subjecting the petitioner to a trial after 44 years, when the primary accused had already served their sentences and considering the petitioner's clean record during this time, would be a waste of judicial resources. Consequently, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, effectively closing one of the oldest criminal cases in the state's history.
Implications
This decision underscores the importance of timely prosecution and the challenges associated with delayed trials. The court's ruling reflects a recognition of the need to utilize judicial resources efficiently and to avoid prolonged legal proceedings that may no longer serve the interests of justice. By quashing the decades-old case, the Karnataka High Court has highlighted the significance of due process and the potential prejudices that can arise from inordinate delays in the criminal justice system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.