Supreme Court's Call for Expedited Justice: 40-Year-Old Rape and Murder Case

Supreme Court's Call for Expedited Justice: 40-Year-Old Rape and Murder Case

Author:- Ayushi Mishra, a Student of Jitendra Chauhan College of Law

Introduction

In a landmark decision that underscores the importance of timely justice, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Calcutta High Court to prioritize the appeal of a 75-year-old lawyer convicted in a case of rape and murder dating back to 1983. This decision comes after a four-decade-long legal battle and raises important questions about the Indian judicial system's ability to deliver justice in a reasonable timeframe. The Supreme Court's order not only granted bail to the appellant but also urged the High Court to expedite the appeal process. In this article, we delve into the details of this case and discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's directive.

The Lengthy Legal Battle

The case at hand involves a shocking incident of rape and murder that occurred in 1983. The appellant, Banamali Choudhury, a 75-year-old lawyer, was convicted by a trial court on April 21, 2023, for his involvement in the heinous crime. The trial, which spanned over four decades, finally concluded with his conviction. During the trial, an adverse inference was drawn against Choudhury when he refused to provide his semen sample upon the investigating agency's request.

Choudhury appealed his conviction in the Calcutta High Court, and his appeal was admitted for final hearing. He also filed an application under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking the suspension of his sentence and bail while his appeal was pending. He argued that the evidence presented during the trial was insufficient to establish the incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. He also claimed that the trial court had relied on statements of hostile witnesses before the Magistrate to arrive at a guilty verdict.

The High Court, however, dismissed his plea, citing his refusal to provide a semen sample as the basis for drawing an adverse inference. It held that the right against self-incrimination did not extend to the refusal of bodily fluids, relying on the precedent set in the case of State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad.

Supreme Court's Intervention

In its recent order dated September 25, 2023, the Supreme Court acknowledged the extraordinary delay in the case, the appellant's age, and the passage of time since the incident. This led the Court to grant bail to Banamali Choudhury pending the final disposal of his appeal before the High Court. However, this was not the only significant aspect of the Supreme Court's decision.

The Court also recognized that it should not normally set a specific time schedule for any court, including a Constitutional Court like the High Court, to decide a case. However, it emphasized the peculiar feature of this case—the forty-year delay in the trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court made a special request to the Calcutta High Court to prioritize the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with the law.

Implications and Significance

The Supreme Court's directive in this case carries several important implications and highlights crucial aspects of the Indian judicial system.

1. Right to Timely Justice: The case of Banamali Choudhury underscores the fundamental right to timely justice, which is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The delay in the legal proceedings, lasting four decades, raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

2. Age and Health Considerations: The Supreme Court's decision to grant bail to Choudhury took into account his age and health. This is a recognition of the principle that justice should be tempered with compassion, especially when dealing with elderly or infirm individuals.

3. Expedited Appeals: By urging the Calcutta High Court to expedite the appeal process, the Supreme Court sends a strong message about the need for speedy resolution of criminal cases. It emphasizes that justice delayed is justice denied, and protracted legal battles can have adverse effects on the accused, victims, and witnesses.

4. Legal Precedents: The case also highlights the importance of legal precedents in shaping decisions. The High Court's reliance on the precedent set in the State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad case was a pivotal factor in Choudhury's unsuccessful application for bail. Legal precedents play a crucial role in interpreting and applying the law.

5. Responsibility of Legal Professionals: The Supreme Court's directive to Choudhury, a lawyer himself, to ensure that the Court's order is implemented and the appeal is disposed of expeditiously emphasizes the responsibility of legal professionals in upholding the integrity of the justice system.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in the Banamali Choudhury case serves as a reminder of the imperative for timely justice. It highlights the need to address delays in legal proceedings, especially in cases that span several decades. While the case is specific to India, its underlying principles resonate with justice systems worldwide. Timely justice not only upholds the rights of the accused but also promotes public trust and confidence in the legal system. As legal reforms continue, it is essential to ensure that justice is not only served but also served promptly to maintain the integrity of the justice system and protect the rights of all individuals involved.