In a case that starkly illustrates the slow and often tragic march of justice in India, a local court in Jhansi has finally delivered a verdict nearly five decades after the alleged crime took place.
The accused, Kanhaiya Lal, now 68 years old, was convicted for theft and cheating in a case dating back to 1976 — a time when India was still under the Emergency and Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister.
The verdict was pronounced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court in Jhansi, which sentenced Lal to the period already undergone in judicial custody — approximately six months served over two separate stints.
The court also imposed a nominal fine of ₹2,300, following Lal’s confession, effectively bringing the long-drawn case to a quiet close.
But beyond the facts of the case lies a deeper, unsettling story — one that reflects the crippling inefficiencies, procedural inertia, and human cost of India’s overburdened and under-resourced judicial system.
The Case: A Theft, a Watch, and Receipt Books
According to records, the case dates back to 1976, when Kanhaiya Lal was working as a Class IV employee at a cooperative society in Jhansi.
He was accused of stealing a wristwatch worth ₹150 — a modest sum even then — and several receipt books from the office premises. More seriously, he and two others — Lakshmi Prasad and Raghunath — were also accused of embezzling funds by forging the signatures of society members on official receipts.
A case was lodged at the Tahrauli police station, and charges were framed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:
- 457 – House-breaking by night
- 380 – Theft in a dwelling house
- 120-B – Criminal conspiracy
- 409 – Criminal breach of trust by a public servant
- 467 & 468 – Forgery of valuable security and forgery for cheating
Lal was arrested shortly after and spent about three months in custody before being released on bail.
A Trial That Time Almost Forgot
Over the decades that followed, the case became yet another forgotten file gathering dust in court archives. The two co-accused, Lakshmi Prasad and Raghunath, died before the trial could even begin, highlighting a chilling reality — that in India, people can die waiting for justice, without even being formally heard.
Kanhaiya Lal, meanwhile, claimed that he had believed the case was closed, based on what his lawyer had allegedly told him. For years, he lived a seemingly quiet life, unaware or misinformed about the proceedings until 2022, when the court — after multiple unresponded summons — finally issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against him.
Upon arrest, Lal was once again remanded to judicial custody, spending another three months in jail, nearly 46 years after his initial detention. This time, confronted with the weight of age and circumstances, he confessed — not so much to guilt, perhaps, as to sheer resignation.
A Justice System Struggling Under Its Weight
This case is not an anomaly; it is a symptom of a much larger malaise that afflicts the Indian judicial system. With over 5 crore pending cases across the country — including more than 4 crore in subordinate courts alone — the system is gasping under its backlog.
Delays caused by procedural bottlenecks, outdated filing systems, chronic staff shortages, frequent adjournments, and lack of coordination between police, prosecution, and courts result in cases dragging on for decades.
Often, the wheels of justice move so slowly that those involved pass away, forget, or fade into obscurity before a verdict is ever delivered.
In the Jhansi case, two of the three accused died waiting for their trial to begin. The third, Kanhaiya Lal, spent nearly 50 years under the shadow of a case involving a wristwatch and receipt books — a period during which entire governments rose and fell, technology evolved from typewriters to AI, and yet his fate remained suspended in time.
What the Prosecution Said
Prosecuting Officer Akhilesh Kumar Maurya noted that there was strong documentary evidence against Lal, and the court acted based on his confession. He acknowledged that Lal had spent about six months in jail, split across two spells — one soon after his initial arrest in the 1970s, and another in 2022 following the NBW.
While justice may have finally been served, it arrived far too late to carry any meaningful consequence.
Justice Delayed, Justice Denied?
In legal circles, the phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied” is often repeated. But in India, it sometimes feels more like “Justice delayed is justice forgotten.” This case is not about the severity of the crime, but about the severity of the delay.
When it takes 48 years to convict someone in a case where co-accused have died and evidence is relic-like, the system must pause and reflect.
Should minor financial crimes take half a century to resolve? Is it fair to sentence an old man when most of his life has passed under the silent burden of a forgotten case file?
The conviction of Kanhaiya Lal in 2024 for a 1976 crime might satisfy legal procedure, but it raises troubling questions about the efficacy, fairness, and human impact of India’s judicial machinery.
His story — and that of his deceased co-accused — serves as a stark reminder that the wheels of justice must not only turn, but turn swiftly if they are to retain meaning.
Until then, stories like these will continue to haunt the courtrooms of India — tales not of justice served, but of justice lost intimem
#IndianJudiciary #JusticeDelayed #JudicialBacklog #JhansiCase #48YearsLater #SlowJustice #LegalReform #CourtDelays #JusticeSystem #ForgottenCases #JudicialInertia #IndianCourts #CaseBacklog #KanhaiyaLalVerdict #IPC1976 #SpeedyTrialNeeded