HC reserved verdicts in early 2022, yet to pronounce.
NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented judicial inaction causing anxiety and uncertainty to those under the shadow of death sentence , the Jharkhand high court had reserved verdicts more than three years ago on appeals filed by six death-row convicts challenging their convictions and capital sentences and is yet to pronounce verdicts.
Arguing their appeals filed in the supreme court through its legal services committee against non-pronouncement of judgments for years, advocate Fauzia Shakil told a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that it is a serious infraction of the right to speedy justice.
Justice Kant asked whether these judgments were reserved by the same Judge who was called out by the apex court on an earlier occasion for similar inaction in delivering judgments. Shakil answered in the affirmative and said though these are 10 judgments which are reserved for a long time, the status report submitted by the HC on delayed pronouncement of verdicts to the SC did not reflect eight of them.
Interestingly, in all these 10 appeals – six of whom have been awarded death sentence and rest life terms in murder cases – justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay is the presiding judge of the benches which heard and reserved verdicts in nine cases between Jan 2022 and Aug 2022 and in one in Aug 2023.
The death-row convicts are Nitesh Sahu (judgment on appeal reserved on Aug 28, 2022), Sanatan Baski (Feb 3, 2022), Sukhlal Murmu (Feb 3, 2022), Gandhi Oraon (Jan 10, 2022), Rohit Rai (Jan 25, 2022) and Bandhan Oran (Jan 13, 2022).
Earlier a similar inaction by the HC in pronouncing judgments in four cases of lifers was brought to the notice of the SC through Shakil and a bench led by Justice Kant had sought a status report from the HC about such cases being kept in limbo. Within a week of the SC entertaining the four cases, the HC had pronounced the verdicts which were reserved for years. Three were acquitted and in one there was a split verdict entitling the accused bail.
Shakil informed the apex court that among the present 10 petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to death or life imprisonment. “It is pertinent to note that each one of them has served an actual custody period ranging between over 6 years to over 16 years,” she said.
The petitioners pointed out that non-pronouncement of judgments by the HC for more than three years breached the Jharkhand HC Rules, 2001, which provided that “Reserved judgments should ordinarily be pronounced within six weeks of the conclusion of the arguments. In the event of the judgments not being pronounced within three months of the conclusion of the arguments, the chief justice may either post the case for delivering judgment in open Court or withdraw the case and post it for disposal before an appropriate Bench.”
NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented judicial inaction causing anxiety and uncertainty to those under the shadow of death sentence , the Jharkhand high court had reserved verdicts more than three years ago on appeals filed by six death-row convicts challenging their convictions and capital sentences and is yet to pronounce verdicts.
Arguing their appeals filed in the supreme court through its legal services committee against non-pronouncement of judgments for years, advocate Fauzia Shakil told a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that it is a serious infraction of the right to speedy justice.
Justice Kant asked whether these judgments were reserved by the same Judge who was called out by the apex court on an earlier occasion for similar inaction in delivering judgments. Shakil answered in the affirmative and said though these are 10 judgments which are reserved for a long time, the status report submitted by the HC on delayed pronouncement of verdicts to the SC did not reflect eight of them.
Interestingly, in all these 10 appeals – six of whom have been awarded death sentence and rest life terms in murder cases – justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay is the presiding judge of the benches which heard and reserved verdicts in nine cases between Jan 2022 and Aug 2022 and in one in Aug 2023.
The death-row convicts are Nitesh Sahu (judgment on appeal reserved on Aug 28, 2022), Sanatan Baski (Feb 3, 2022), Sukhlal Murmu (Feb 3, 2022), Gandhi Oraon (Jan 10, 2022), Rohit Rai (Jan 25, 2022) and Bandhan Oran (Jan 13, 2022).
Earlier a similar inaction by the HC in pronouncing judgments in four cases of lifers was brought to the notice of the SC through Shakil and a bench led by Justice Kant had sought a status report from the HC about such cases being kept in limbo. Within a week of the SC entertaining the four cases, the HC had pronounced the verdicts which were reserved for years. Three were acquitted and in one there was a split verdict entitling the accused bail.
Shakil informed the apex court that among the present 10 petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to death or life imprisonment. “It is pertinent to note that each one of them has served an actual custody period ranging between over 6 years to over 16 years,” she said.
The petitioners pointed out that non-pronouncement of judgments by the HC for more than three years breached the Jharkhand HC Rules, 2001, which provided that “Reserved judgments should ordinarily be pronounced within six weeks of the conclusion of the arguments. In the event of the judgments not being pronounced within three months of the conclusion of the arguments, the chief justice may either post the case for delivering judgment in open Court or withdraw the case and post it for disposal before an appropriate Bench.”
You may also like
Amitabh Bachchan recalls moment of 'sadness' when he had no money in his wallet
I stopped breathing more than 20 times a night - 1 thing changed the way I sleep
China's June new home prices fall at fastest monthly pace in 8 months
Stop squirrels from ruining gardens by growing 3 plants they 'run away from'
Get 30% off menopause supplements for bloating women 'wish they'd found sooner'
