Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Man Facing Charges Of Giving False Evidence In A Murder Trial For Past 32 Years

Granting relief to the accused, a bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh noted that it is nearly impossible to hold a fair trial of the applicant-accused after such a long time-lapse, and the same would be a sheer waste of public time and money apart from causing harassment to the applicant-accused.

The Court also noted that the applicant has been facing the issue for the past 32 years, no witness has been examined so far, and there is nothing to show that the applicant is responsible for the delay in trial.

The proceedings against the accused-applicant under the aforementioned sections of IPC were initiated vide complaint dated July 21, 1992, and he was summoned therein merely because he had not supported the prosecution version during the trial.

Essentially, the applicant lodged an FIR in October 1991 against Salim under Section 302 IPC, and after the trial, the accused was acquitted in June 1992.

While acquitting the accused, the trial Court directed the initiating of proceedings under Sections 211/194 IPC against the applicant on the ground that during the trial, the applicant had not supported the prosecution version.

The applicant moved the HC with a quashing plea on the grounds that he has been facing trial since 1992 and that not a single witness has been examined until now.

It was the submission of his counsel that the right of expeditious trial is a fundamental right of the accused, which has been violated in this case,

It was also argued that even in view of the nature of the accusation, no case is made out against the applicant and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending.

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr case, the HC emphasised that fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily.

“it is apparent that speedy trial, which means reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to speedy trial and fair procedure has passed through several milestones on the path of constitutional jurisprudence,” the bench remarked.

Against the backdrop of these observations, the Court quashed the proceedings in the complaint case.

Case title - Chandrakant Tripathi vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 25

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 25

Click Here To Read/Download Order