The Kerala High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran, highlighted the need for speedy trials and proper assistance to prisoners for filing appeals to avoid the long periods of incarceration suffered by under-trial prisoners. [Jahir Hussain v State of Kerala].
Facts of the Case
House trespass, robbery and murder are the charges on which the appellant was convicted, based only on circumstantial evidence, that too mainly on the recoveries made of the various articles which were alleged to have been stolen from the house and sold to various persons or kept in secure places. There were two accused, one of whom was convicted in an earlier trial, since the cases were split up on the present appellant absconding after the Sessions Court had taken the case on file. Later, arrest of the appellant led to the present trial in which he was convicted under Ss.449, 392, 394 & 302. Life imprisonment and fine under S.302 and various terms of imprisonment under the other provisions, with appropriate fine and also default sentences, in the event of failure to pay fines, were imposed.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that there is no single circumstance connecting the accused with the crime, leave alone an unbroken chain of such circumstances. There is absolutely no evidence obtained regarding the murder, either scientific or circumstantial. The motive spoken of is frivolous to say the least and there is no clear ascertainment of ownership or identity of the stolen goods from the house. The recovered goods, the MOs, were not properly identified and the proceedings sheet shows that they were missing from the court and there is no whisper as to how they were traced out. Apart from there being no proper identification of the recovered goods, even the alleged owner does not have a definite case as to the quantity of the goods stolen or its value. The fact that the goods were insured for a huge amount should normally raise a suspicion against the owner of the goods himself.
Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand relied on Ganeshlal v. State of Rajasthan [2002 (1) SCC 731] to put forth the contention of the house trespass and murder being a reasonable inference possible from the fact that the stolen goods were recovered at the instance of the accused based on confession statement admissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act. The various recoveries were pointed out and mahazars read out, to emphasize that the there is clear evidence of the stolen goods being in the possession of the accused. The accused offered absolutely no explanation for such possession and he was caught red handed while trying to sell the goods
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset noted, "We cannot but point out the distressing aspect of continued incarceration of under-trial prisoners and the delay occasioned in conducting trials. As per the statistics of the National Legal Services Authority, the ratio of under-trial prisoners to that of the total population in prisons in Kerala is 59% in the year 2020. We are of the opinion that the High Court could issue directions to the Trial Courts to take up matters based on the date of incarceration of convicts and also in fit cases to consider bail, if there is inordinate delay caused, for any reason not attributable to the accused; as in this case, due to the missing of original documents and then, the properties not being traced out. In the present case when we have acquitted the accused, it is appalling that he has completed 13 years in prison, almost the life term as per the Criminal Procedure Code; to enable commutation. We are also informed that the co- accused, who was convicted, has been released after 14 years of incarceration."
The bench remarked, "In this context, we also have to call upon the District Legal Services Authorities [DLSA] to take up a more proactive role in the case of under-trial prisoners and also in cases like the present one and in the case of any convict, released after completing the sentence imposed, for rehabilitation; especially of first offenders. It is also for the State to formulate a scheme for such rehabilitation, which alone could realize the shift from the retributive and punitive theories of sentencing to the broader one intended of reformation. We also notice the long delay in filing appeals by indigent convicts, despite there being in existence Legal Aid Clinics at the Prisons, manned by Para Legal Volunteers of the Legal Services Authority. The Department of Prisons and Correctional Home shall also sensitize the Jail Authorities about the need to render assistance to the convicts in filing timely appeals before this Court and moving applications for suspending the sentence."
The bench posting the matter to be heard after 2 months remarked, "We keep the matter pending only to have an effective follow up on the rehabilitation of the acquitted person in this case. Post after two months for compliance."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
