allegedly took place on 04.04.1995 on completion of the trial, the judgement was delivered on 05.02.2016, i.e., after 21 years. A perusal of the notes paper of the trial court would again go to show that the accused were not at all responsible for the prolongation of the trial. It shows that some documents were not received by the trial court and some and some other reasons attributable by the prosecution were the reasons for this delay. It is unfair to drag on the case for 21 years thereby making the accused to attend the court for 21 years and then to conclude the trial. In our considered view, since speedy trial is a fundamental right, in this case, the trial which concluded after 21 years of occurrence is, certainly, not only a delayed trial, but, also an unfair trial. After 21 years, it would have been difficult for the accused to defend their case effectively as most of the witnesses would have forgotten about the happenings due to fading memory. Thus, in this case, in our considered view, the accused have been denied fair trial. As guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The life and liberty of an individual could be deprived of only by following the procedure established by law which included fairness in investigation, fairness in trial and also speedy trial. In the instant case, as we have already narrated, there is a gross violation of these guaranteed rights and thus, in our considered view, the conviction of the appellants is vitiated as it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. As we have already concluded, on facts also, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against any of the accused and therefore, they are entitled for acquittal.
