"Delay in trial constitutes denial of Justice:" Chhattisgarh High Court awards Rs 1.8 lakh compensation to man jailed in excess of sentence

Observing that the right to speedy trial is the essence of criminal trial, the Chhattisgarh High Court has awarded over Rs 1.8 lakhs as compensation to a man who remained in jail for over a year in excess of the imprisonment sentence ultimately imposed upon conviction, on account of delays in trial (Nitin Aryan v. State of Chhattisgarh)..There can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitutes a denial of justice, said Justice Sanjay K Agrawal while directing the payment of Rs 1,87,200 along with 6% interest to the petitioner. .The Bench found that the petitioner had remained in jail for a period over the term of his prison sentence on account of delays in conducting the trial, even though the High Court had twice directed the Magistrate to conclude the trial expeditiously. ."... the petitioner continued in jail for a period more than the actual sentence awarded violating the petitioner's right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for which he is entitled for monetary compensation", the Court held..The petitioner had moved the Court for compensation claiming infringment of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty)..The Court was informed that he had remained in judicial custody for four years, six months and seven days (from the date of his arrest in 2012) before the a trial court convicted him in a cheating case in 2016. .Notably, the jail sentence awarded to him by the trial court was only for three years. In other words, he remained in jail for 18 months longer than his sentence. .It was the petitioner’s case that “right to speedy trial” is his fundamental right which was violated on account of non-conclusion of the trial within a reasonable time. Therefore, he asserted that he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs for the illegal detention..The State contested the petition on the ground that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the delay in trial was attributed to the prosecution. .The Court, however, stated that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and that the petitioner’s fundamental rights had been violated..In this regard, Justice Agrawal relied on the judgements in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, Meneka Gandhi v Union of India, Hussainara Khatoon's case, Abdul Rehman Antulay's case and P Ramchandra Rao's case and Common Cause v. Union of India..“It has clearly been established that the right to speedy trial in criminal case is valuable and important right of the accused therein and its violation would result in denial of justice and that would result in grave miscarriage of justice", the Court said..The Court reiterated that the right to life and liberty is a serious matter and cannot be treated with indifference or callousness as the unauthorised detention of a person is against human dignity. .Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and there can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice.Chhattisgarh High Court.While extending the petitioner compensation for the period of excess imprisonment he suffered on account of the delays in trial, the Court added:.“It is well established that if the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been denied by illegal action of the State or its officers, the person concerned is entitled for compensation, though loss to personal liberty cannot be compensated in terms of money ... It is held that right to life is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for its breach or violation, the petitioner is entitled for monetary compensation from the respondents who are responsible for its breach.”.The respondent-authorities were directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of thirty days. .Advocate Reena Singh represented the petitioner, the respondents were represented by Deputy Advocate General Jitendra Pali. Advocate Prasoon Agrawal acted as Amicus Curiae..[Read Order]