Ends of justice

And on this hangs a long tale of our criminal justice system’s convoluted functioning. The CID moved for a closure of the case under IPC 302 and 498A. There were as many as 49 hearings over 45 months. One witness, the deceased girl’s ‘chachi’, failed to respond to five notices over as many months. She turned up only when warrants were issued. A date was fixed for arguments, but on that date the CID took permission for producing another witness. His statement could not be recorded, however, because of the transfer of the presiding judicial magistrate.

When the new incumbent took charge, he saw the bulky file and ordered that the decision will be announced some weeks later. But on the appointed date, surprisingly enough, he asked for a gazetted CID officer to investigate the whole case afresh and report back to him in three months. An officer of DSP rank performed the job, and gave a final report. The court accepted it and wished to study it. After three monthly adjournments, the judicial magistrate decided to send the case to the Lok Adalat, although there was precious little left in the case. There the plaintiff pleaded for money for his younger daughter’s marriage because the accused had “plenty of it”! For no apparent reason, except to end the case, the judicial magistrate urged the husband to shell out a lakh. It was the fifth magistrate (after four transfers) who announced the decision verbally. Curiously enough he refused to give a certified copy of his order to the accused, possibly because he did not want them to appeal against it!

Justice as an objective is fine to dream about, but difficult to define and even more difficult to ensure!