The Supreme Court has ruled that two individuals must face trial in connection with a murder case that had been closed for over 12 years. This case, in which two other accused had already been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, resurfaced following legal scrutiny.
The two individuals, Jamin and Akil, had been named in the initial First Information Report (FIR) by the brother of the deceased. However, despite their names being included in the complaint, the Uttar Pradesh police did not include them in the chargesheet, citing a lack of evidence. Consequently, the trial court did not frame charges against them, allowing them to remain outside the scope of prosecution at the time.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that even though Jamin and Akil had not been chargesheeted at the time, they could still be subjected to trial at a later stage. This ruling underscores the principle that the mere absence of an accused’s name in the charge sheet does not exempt them from legal proceedings if subsequent judicial findings warrant their prosecution.
The case dates back to April 14, 2009, when the family of the deceased registered an FIR at the Bilgram police station in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, against five individuals—Irshad, Irfan, Abdul, Jamin, and Akil—alleging their involvement in a murder. Following an investigation, however, the police filed a charge sheet on July 14, 2009, naming only Irshad and Irfan as accused while excluding the other three from prosecution.
Disappointed by this decision, the victim’s family approached the sessions court, requesting the issuance of summons against the remaining three accused. However, the court denied their plea, effectively leaving Jamin, Akil, and Abdul out of the trial process.
Subsequently, the case proceeded against Irshad and Irfan, culminating in their conviction on October 19, 2011. The additional district and sessions judge in Hardoi found both individuals guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment, thereby concluding the trial at that stage.
Despite the conclusion of the trial, the matter did not end there. The Allahabad High Court intervened and directed an examination of the plea to summon the three individuals who had initially been left out. Acting on this directive, the additional district and sessions judge on February 21, 2024, issued summons for Abdul, Jamin, and Akil to appear before the court. However, by this time, Abdul had passed away, leaving only Jamin and Akil to face the revived legal proceedings.
Challenging this decision, Jamin and Akil approached the high court, arguing that they should not be forced to stand trial after more than a decade since the conclusion of the original case. They contended that reopening the matter after such a prolonged period was unjustified and legally untenable.
However, the high court dismissed their plea, affirming that their prosecution was warranted. Unwilling to accept this verdict, the two accused then escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, filing an appeal in an attempt to overturn the high court’s decision.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing that the passage of time does not automatically nullify the pursuit of justice. The apex court’s judgment sets a precedent that individuals initially left out of a chargesheet can still be brought to trial if judicial authorities determine there are sufficient grounds for prosecution.
This case highlights the complexities of the legal system and the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring that all accused individuals, regardless of procedural delays, are held accountable if there is credible evidence against them.