It took almost 18 yrs to convict 4

Nearly 18 years after a group of armed men stormed a magistrate’s court and killed a person, the Bombay High Court convicted four of the accused and sentenced them to four years’ imprisonment.

In 1991, a sessions court had acquitted all the 11 accused for “lack of evidence”. Hearing the appeal, the HC noted, “This appeal against acquittal brings to mind the celebrated words of Viscount Simon that “a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent...”

On December 4, justice PV Hardas and justice PR Borkar struck down the acquittal order stating that there was enough evidence against some of the accused and that “jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic.”

The accused, armed with swords, spears, iron rods and hockey sticks, had entered a Jalgaon magistrate’s court in January 1990 to attack three persons, who were granted bail in a case of setting a local Shiv Sena office on fire. One person was killed, another assaulted, and the third hid in the magistrate’s chamber and escaped after breaking the window panes. 

The complaint was lodged by the magistrate himself. However, during the trial, the magistrate did not identify anyone. Also, no lawyers or court staff came forward to give witness even though the institution of the judiciary was attacked.

“Thus ultimately all the accused were acquitted and muscle power of vandals triumphed over the cause of justice. We also find that instead of undertaking desirable, though arduous, process of verifying veracity of each witness and sifting truth from falsehood, with the help of few discrepancies and inconsistencies, the judgment of acquittal was recorded against all the accused,” the high court held.

The HC relied on the testimony of the person assaulted and the information given by police constable on duty over telephone to a local police station while calling for reinforcement. The constable had named some of the accused. He was familiar with their names as they regularly attended court for other matters.