NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Monday termed as "atrocious" and imposed a fine of Rs one lakh on a suspended policeman of Uttarakhand for filing a plea to "procrastinate" trial in a case in which he is accused of harassing his wife for dowry and killing her in 2007.
"You are misusing the system. Your client is a police constable who is suspended. You have to be removed forthwith from the service and be sent to the jail without a minute's delay. You have successfully dragged a case where you are accused of killing your wife. This is an atrocious case. This is misuse and abuse of the judicial system," a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said.
The apex court was irked over the fact that accused Puran Chandra, whose earlier attempt to get relief from the top court had failed in 2019, has again moved before it seeking to examine some defence witnesses including himself in the case which is pending trial since 2008.
The bench also comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Surya Kant dismissed the plea of the suspended police constable and imposed a cost of Rs one lakh to be paid to the mother of his deceased wife.
If the cost is not paid then the same may be recovered from attaching the property of the accused and the trial court should complete the trial in a period of three months from today, the bench ordered.
Earlier, the Uttarakhand High Court had refused to entertain his plea against an order of the trial court of February 10, 2020.
The accused had filed the plea before the trial court stating that some important defence witnesses are required to be examined, in order to prove certain documents, which was dismissed.
The high court had noted the facts of the case and said that this aspect had been agitated by the accused even before the apex court and was finally dismissed.
Dismissing the case, the high court had said that the accused has been delaying the proceedings of the Sessions Trial.
"Dilly Dallying is not permissible. Undue delay in disposal of Sessions Trial is uncalled for. One cannot take a plea under the garb of defence evidence that one can prolong the proceedings of any Sessions Trial till the period one wants to keep the same pending. Learned trial court has rightly rejected the applicant's application and the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the object of filing such application is only to prolong the decision of the Sessions Trial, which is not permissible in law," the high court had said.