Babri Masjid case has the potential to be a model for future criminal trials in India, but will it achieve it?

Hearing the challenge of the IWC passed a judgment of the Superior Court of Allahabad confirming the charges of conspiracy against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others in the demolition of the Babri mosque case, a court division of the Supreme Court ordered the Court Special in Lucknow solved the procedure to complete the process and will dictate sentence in a period of two years.

The Supreme Court, passing this direction was aware of an order dated December 8, 2011, previously adopted by the High Court of Allahabad, who runs the daily trial before the special judge Raebareli grab case. He noted that “this has been followed in the gap, as less than a hundred witnesses have been examined.” It seems that a person who is not familiar with the legal system of India that two years is sufficient to conclude a trial carried out on hold, to date, more than 20 years. However, evidence in evidence indicates the opposite: Uttar Pradesh has about 2,513 pending cases per judge and a total of 631 290 pending cases for more than 10 years and is always known to have a case of the high rate of elimination!

To discourage deferral, the Supreme Court also ordered the IWC to ensure that the trial was not adjourned due to the absence of witnesses and also ordered the Raebareli trial and Lucknow will remain merged and today follow the view. These instructions do not suppress the inalienable rights of a defendant prior to a trial to cross-examine witnesses as to their examination in court and to remind witnesses rather than counter-examine. Such a retreat of witnesses already examined by the newly added accused with the intelligent lawyers with great judicial powers that appear of natural form to take some time.

After the removal of witnesses, the court also faces the difficult task of securing the examination of other witnesses. All original survivors accused 48 would then receive questions about the incriminating circumstances against each of them that have arisen during the trial, to present their defence. Thereafter, each defendant has the right to present evidence of defence by calling witnesses to testify on his behalf. After that, the final arguments should be addressed by the ICC prosecutor and then, for each accused.

Even if a trial subject to a conviction has passed, every accused has the right to discuss extenuating circumstances to lead to a sentence less than the prescribed maximum. Being short-circuited this process due to the time instructions of the Supreme Court would undoubtedly result in a violation of the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *