Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [July 15, 2024]
Case Background
The case concerns a double murder that took place in Uttar Pradesh in 1994. Two people, Jagdish Sharan Srivastava and Rajkumar (alias Raja Bhaiya), were killed in a violent attack, while others, including the complainant’s nephew, were injured. The police investigated and charged ten individuals for the crime.
One of the accused, Chhote Singh, was a sitting MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) at the time the case proceeded. In 2008, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh allowed the Public Prosecutor to seek withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh under Section 321 of the CrPC, which allows the State to withdraw cases in the interest of justice. The trial court approved this withdrawal, citing Chhote Singh’s good public reputation and political position.
However, the applications for the other nine accused were rejected without explanation. The complainant challenged this selective withdrawal, claiming it was influenced by political considerations and violated the principles of justice.
Legal Issues
Section 321 CrPC – Withdrawal of Prosecution:
Whether the trial court can allow withdrawal of prosecution in heinous crimes, particularly when the accused is a politically influential person.
Influence of Political Status:
Whether political or social standing can be a justification for withdrawing prosecution in serious criminal cases.
Judicial Delays and Accountability:
Whether courts failed in ensuring timely trial, allowing procedural delays that benefit the accused.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, through Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, examined the matter carefully:
The Court emphasized that political influence or public reputation cannot justify withdrawal of prosecution in cases involving serious crimes like murder. Allowing such withdrawal undermines the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system.
The Court criticized the trial court and High Court for allowing repeated adjournments and not curbing delaying tactics by the accused, which prolonged the trial unnecessarily.
The Court highlighted that Section 321 CrPC must be used judiciously and in the public interest, not for extraneous considerations like political expediency.
Court’s Decision
Set Aside Withdrawal Order:
The Supreme Court nullified the trial court’s order permitting withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh.
Direction for Expeditious Trial:
The Court directed that the trial against all accused must proceed without delay, ensuring justice for the victims.
Reinforcing Rule of Law:
The Court stressed that influential status does not place an individual above the law, and judicial discretion must serve justice, not political convenience.
Significance of the Case
Impartial Justice:
The judgment reinforces that justice should be delivered impartially, regardless of the accused’s social or political position.
Strict Scrutiny of Withdrawal Requests:
Courts must carefully examine any request for withdrawal of prosecution, especially in serious crimes.
Timely Justice:
The case emphasizes the need for expeditious trials and prevents misuse of procedural safeguards by powerful individuals.
Precedent:
It sets an important precedent that influential or political figures cannot evade criminal accountability, and withdrawal of prosecution should never be based on extraneous considerations.
In short, this case is a landmark example of the Supreme Court upholding rule of law over political influence, emphasizing justice for victims, and curbing misuse of legal procedures in criminal cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments