New Delhi: The Supreme Court has termed it 'very disturbing' that a trial for murder took 22 years to conclude and the subsequent appeal before the Jharkhand High Court took another 22 years to decide, while issuing notice on a plea filed by a petitioner who is now nearly 70 years old and undergoing treatment in a jail hospital.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a special leave petition filed by Simon Soren against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which had disposed of a criminal appeal challenging his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of murder, along with other co-accused.
Condoning the delay in filing the petition and permitting dasti service in addition to regular notice, the Court noted the extraordinary timeline of the proceedings against the petitioner. Appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR, along with Ms. Nazmeen Ahmed, Advocate, pointed out that the incident giving rise to the case occurred in 1981, but the trial court's judgment convicting the petitioner was delivered only in 2002, and that the petitioner's further statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. had itself been recorded as early as 1994, eight years before the trial concluded.
It is very disturbing to note that although the incident is of the year 1981 yet the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court holding the petitioner guilty of the alleged crime is of the year 2002. We fail to understand, why it took 22 years for the Trial Court to complete the trial.
The Court observed that the delay was compounded by the fact that the High Court of Jharkhand took a further 22 years to decide the appeal against the conviction. Calling for accountability from the concerned authorities, the Bench directed that a comprehensive report be furnished by both the State and the High Court explaining the reasons for the prolonged delay in completing the trial and deciding the appeal.
This delay highlighted above is something very disturbing. We would like to have a comprehensive report in this regard from the State as well as the High Court, more particularly, why it took these many years to complete the trial and decide the criminal appeal.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner, now nearly 70 years of age and suffering from comorbidities, is presently lodged in the jail hospital. Taking note of this, the Court also directed that a separate report be obtained from the hospital authorities regarding the petitioner's ailments and the treatment being provided to him.
Both reports have been directed to be filed within a period of two weeks, with the matter listed for further hearing on 19.08.2026.
Appearances
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR, with Ms. Nazmeen Ahmed, Advocate
Case Title: Simon Soren v. The State of Jharkhand, SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 9856/2026
