High Court of Chhattisgarh affirms existing precedent that indefinite delay caused by non-production of evidence warrants acquittal; binding on subordinate courts in criminal matters
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA No. 534 of 2019 of State of Chhattisgarh Vs Priyajeet Singh @ Chintu |
| CNR | CGHC010238782019 |
| Date of Registration | 19-07-2019 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a trial can be prolonged indefinitely when the prosecution fails to produce any witness, and if acquittal is warranted. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that an accused has a fundamental right to an expeditious trial; when a charge-sheet is filed in 2004, charges are framed only in 2016, and the prosecution still fails to produce a single witness despite repeated opportunities over 13 years, the trial court cannot be faulted for closing the prosecution evidence and acquitting the accused. A prosecution must vigilantly produce its witnesses to ensure a fair and timely trial; failure to do so justifies acquittal. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The principle of speedy and fair trial as an inherent right of the accused; inherent power of the trial court to close prosecution evidence after undue delay. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44549 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and criminal benches of Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that indefinite delay and non-production of witnesses by the prosecution can justify acquittal.
- Emphasizes the accused’s fundamental right to an expeditious trial under CrPC.
- Confirms the trial court’s inherent power to close prosecution evidence when no witness is produced despite warnings.
- Provides binding authority for subordinate courts to dismiss cases where prosecution fails to present any evidence over an extended period.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The FIR was lodged in October 2004, but charges were framed only in June 2016.
- From June 2016 to November 2017, the prosecution repeatedly failed to produce any witness despite multiple court orders and warnings.
- On 07.12.2017, the trial court closed the prosecution evidence for want of any witness and recorded the accused’s statements.
- Citing the fundamental right to a speedy trial, the High Court held that no trial can be stretched indefinitely due to prosecution inaction.
- The High Court found no error in the trial court’s exercise of its inherent power to acquit when the prosecution produces no evidence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The trial court erred in acquitting the accused solely because the prosecution failed to produce witnesses.
Respondent
- No separate submissions recorded in the appeal.
Factual Background
Parties faced trial on an FIR registered on 03.10.2004 under Sections 294, 506-B & 34 IPC alleging unlawful assembly, use of filthy language, and threats. The charge-sheet was filed in 2004 but charges were framed only on 15.06.2016. Despite repeated summons, the prosecution did not examine a single witness up to 07.12.2017. The trial court, noting a 13-year pendency and zero evidence, closed the prosecution’s case and acquitted the accused. The State’s acquittal appeal under Section 378(1) CrPC was dismissed on 02.09.2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Appeal under Section 378(1) CrPC against acquittal.
- Inherent power of trial court to close prosecution evidence and acquit under prolonged non-production of witnesses.
- Emphasis on the fundamental right to a speedy trial as implicit in CrPC procedures.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44549 (Neutral citation)