In a case that underlines the shadow of judicial delay, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted a 100-year-old accused in a murder case from 1982. The judgment has been given after more than four decades of his conviction, with the appeal pending for over 40 years. Relying on the extraordinary delay in the case, the loopholes in the prosecution’s case, and the age of the accused, the court gave the accused the benefit of the doubt. This case has again underlined the human cost of delays in the criminal justice system in India.
The 1982 Murder Case and Original Conviction
The case begins with the murder of a man named Gunwa on August 9, 1982, who was shot dead in the Hamirpur district of Uttar Pradesh. This murder was allegedly connected to a land dispute. According to the prosecution, the killing shot was given by the principal accused, Maiku, who was instigated by Dhaniram and another accused, Sattidin. It was on the basis of this that the trial court framed the case as murder with common intention. In 1984, a sessions court in Hamirpur convicted Dhaniram and Sattidin and gave them life imprisonment. It is pertinent to note that the principal alleged shooter, Maiku, was never arrested throughout the investigation and trial. To challenge the conviction, both Dhaniram and Sattidin appealed to the Allahabad High Court. They were granted bail pending the hearing of their appeals, thus initiating a long process that would take decades to conclude.
Prolonged Judicial Delay: 40 years in the making
Both Dhaniram and Sattidin’s three-ring appeals were pending in the Allahabad High Court for over 40 years after Dhaniram was convicted in 1984. During that time, both men were free on bail and waiting for a decision by the High Court confirming or overturning their respective convictions. But waiting for 40 years and, to make matters worse, losing Sattidin (one of the complainants), was an incredible demonstration of how judicial delays have affected people involved in the criminal justice system for thirty plus years. This case illustrated how judicial delay can impact people’s lives. By the time the High Court heard and ruled on Dhaniram and Sattidin’s case, Dhaniram was over 100 years old! Thus, Dhaniram’s century long life echoed throughout the courts; however, it served to highlight the extreme lengths of time individuals languish trapped in the criminal justice system through no fault of their own.
The Reasoning and Judgment by High Court on the Case
A division bench (Justices Chandradhari Singh & Sanjeev Kumar) of the High Court (HC) reviewed both the merits of this case and the reason for the long-time period of delay; they found that the “defaulting” parties, including the person who was the “main” accused and who was accused of having shot the victim, were never taken into custody. That specific finding was significant to evaluate the strength of the prosecution’s case at issue against Mr. Dhaniram. The bench also had serious reservations regarding the evidence in support of the “appeal” against Mr. Dhaniram. Critically, in evaluating the totality of the findings, the HC found that the appeal against Mr. Dhaniram was pending for over forty (40) years; additionally, the surviving Mr. Dhaniram is of advanced age. The combination of the above factors was sufficient to provide Mr. Dhaniram with the benefit of the doubt and, therefore, to have the conviction reversed and to have the life sentence imposed by the sessions court vacated; thus, Mr. Dhaniram was acquitted of the above charges.
Implications for the Criminal Justice System
The acquittal of Dhaniram after 42 years has drawn attention once again to the issue of delays in the criminal justice system. Delayed cases can create lasting consequences for an accused, particularly when appeals sit undecided for decades (in other words, there has been an extreme length of time between the charge, trial, and/or final resolution of proceedings). Additionally, it will prove difficult for the courts to deal with very old cases due to the lack of available witnesses and evidence. This was illustrated by how the High Court’s decision to acquit Dhaniram was based upon the evidence presented during trial and all gaps or weaknesses in prosecution’s case and accepting the prosecution would have to produce sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (benefit was given to all accused); however, the long passage of time was critical element of decision and played a significant role in ultimate outcome. In addition, this case is likely to spur larger discussion on the efficiency of the judiciary and need for governments/officials to remedy long awaited criminal appeals. It is important to recognize that the effects of delayed justice not only impact those who have been incorrectly charged, found guilty and/or acquitted; they also impact family members who have lost a loved one through violence and are waiting years before seeing a resolution to their loss.
Conclusion
The acquittal of Dhaniram after over four decades is a rare and chilling reminder that justice has finally been served in a case that dated back to 1982. Although the Allahabad High Court’s verdict was based on the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and the principle of giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, the fact that the judicial process took so long to arrive at a verdict remained the defining factor in this case. The verdict also serves as a grim reminder of the human cost of delayed justice, not only for the accused but also for the families of the victims who are left waiting for so long for a final verdict.
