JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai to conclude the Trial in S.C.No.470 of 2020 within a stipulated period.) 1. “What has happened in Tamil Nadu's Thoothukudi District is worse than the Nirbhaya Case for which four persons involved were hanged early this year.” -Retired Judge of Supreme Court of India. “The George Floyds of India are far too many” - Social Activist. “Reeling from what I'm hearing. Absolutely stunned, sad and angry. No human being deserves such brutality, whatever by their crime. The guilty must not be allowed to go unpunished. We need facts. I cannot even begin to imagine what the family must be going through. Sending strength and prayers. We need to use our collective voices to seek justice.” - Film Actress “Every singly life matters. We should make sure that this act of brutality is meted out with justice and I am not sure justice will be any solace for the family.” - National Cricketer. “What happened in Sathankulam is Horrible. Insult to humanism. The accused needs to be punished and justice has to be given to those power souls. Some humans are more dangerous than Viruses.” Film Maker. 2. The above are some of the outbursts of the people from all walks of life, expressing their shock, dismay, anguish and anger and condemning the death of Jeyaraj and his son Bennics, allegedly due to custodial tortures. Hundreds of thousands of tweets were sent out using the hashtag “justice for Jeyaraj and Bennics,” which was among the top twitter topics trending in India on 26.06.2020 and among the top 30 trending globally. 3. On 19.06.2020, 59 years old P.Jeyaraj and his son 31 years Benniks were taken to the Sathankulam Police Station for allegedly violating the Covid-19 lock-down rules by keeping their Mobile accessories shop open beyond permissible hours and they were remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, Benniks was admitted in Kovilpatti, Government Hospital on 22.06.2020 and he died later that day and that his father Jeyaraj was also reported dead on the subsequent day. The alleged custodial death of the two men has sparked massive outrage in the state over the alleged police brutality. 4. Thereafter, Benniks was admitted in Kovilpatti, Government Hospital on 22.06.2020 and he died later that day and that his father Jeyaraj was also reported dead on the subsequent day. The alleged custodial death of the two men has sparked massive outrage in the state over the alleged police brutality. 4. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court had taken suo-motu cognizance of the matter and a Division Bench of this Court passed series of orders. 5. The case was subsequently transferred to CBI and after completion of investigation, CBI filed a final report before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai and after taking the case on file in S.C.No.470 of 2020, the same was made over to the file of I Additional Sessions Court, Madurai. 6. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 09.03.2021, it was informed by the petitioner as well as the respondent side, that the sessions case stood posted to 10.03.2021 before the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai. Subsequently, this Court came to know that the charges have been framed and the trial was ordered to be commenced by issuing summons to the listed witnesses 1 to 5 for the hearing on 17.03.2021 and the case was again adjourned to 24.03.2021. The petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased Jeyaraj and the mother of the deceased Bennics, has come forward with the above petition, seeking to issue writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai to conclude the trial in the Sessions case in S.C.No.470 of 2020, within a stipulated period fixed by this Court. To put it in short, the petitioner has sought for the speedy disposal of the case in S.C.No.470 of 2020, pending on the file of the Ist Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai. 7. The reasons assigned by the petitioner for seeking speedy trial are: (i) The accused are highly influential, with no regards for the rule of law and would go to any extent to escape from the clutches of law. When the accused were under suspension after the occurrence, the other police personnel attached to the Sathankulam Police Station, deliberately prevented the judicial enquiry and had even gone to the extent of abusing the judicial Magistrate, during the enquiry. When the accused were under suspension after the occurrence, the other police personnel attached to the Sathankulam Police Station, deliberately prevented the judicial enquiry and had even gone to the extent of abusing the judicial Magistrate, during the enquiry. (ii) After the occurrence, the accused were called for basic enquiry by their higher officials, but they failed to appear as most of them were absconding and they were nabbed from their hideouts. In case, if the accused are granted bail, they will certainly abscond and escape from the reach of law. (iii) Many of the witnesses are lower rank police personnel and hence, the accused would be easily reaching them and threatening them. (iv) When the first accused was produced before the Court on 10.12.2020, he made phone call inside the Court hall and he used other's mobile phone and threatened some one demanding Rs.36,00,000/-. On the same day, the accused fought with the escort police men and the media people and threatened them and hurled filthy language. The accused are employing their money, muscle and designation power to topple the fair trial, discourage the witnesses, who are mainly common people and subordinate police officials. (v) The trial should be conducted before the memories of witnesses fade away, before the culprits succeed in their attempt to neutralise the spirit of a fair trial by influencing the witnesses by one or the other methods. 8. Admittedly, all the accused are police personnel ranging from Constable to the Inspector of Police. 9. The Division Bench of this Court, after coming to know through the report of the learned Magistrate, that the police men in the Sathankulam Police Station were not giving records called for by the learned Judicial Magistrate, who was conducting enquiry and one police constable had gone to the extent of making a very disparaging remark to the learned Magistrate, has taken cognizance for criminal contempt against the Additional Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and a police constable and that the contempt proceedings are still pending before this Court. This Court in its order dated 29.06.2020, had observed that a reading of the Magistrate's report shows that the District Police Administration are doing everything within their command to prevent the learned Magistrate from proceeding with the enquiry. 10. This Court in its order dated 29.06.2020, had observed that a reading of the Magistrate's report shows that the District Police Administration are doing everything within their command to prevent the learned Magistrate from proceeding with the enquiry. 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the subsequent order dated 30.06.2020, observed that from the report of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, they are able to discern that the Sathankulam Police are taking advantage of the fact that the investigation of the case is in limbo and are attempting to cause disappearance of evidence and they were emboldened enough to even intimidate the judicial officer to put spokes in the wheel of his enquiry. 11. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'le Division Bench of this Court, in its order dated 29.06.2020, after getting information from the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, observed that the police personnel in the Sathankulam Police Station were not co-operating with the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Kovilpatti, in conducting the enquiry under Section 176 (1) (1-A) Cr.P.C for collecting clue materials, directed the District Collector, Tuticorin to depute Revenue Officers to the Sathankulam Police Station, for the purpose of preserving the clue materials. 12. On 30.06.2020, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, directed to record the statement of Head constable Revathi under Section 164 Cr.P.C and also directed the District Collector, Thoothukudi to ensure the safety of the said Revathy and her family members and further directed that the said Revathy may be granted leave from duty as the Bench fear, that there will be attempt to intimidate her and make her resile from her version given to the learned Magistrate. 13. This Court is constrained to refer the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court mentioned above, only to show the way in which the police administration in Thoothukudi District was conducting the earlier investigation, the way in which they were preventing the learned Judicial Magistrate from conducting his enquiry, the way in which they had mis-behaved with the Judicial Officer and the way in which they had attempted to cause disappearance of evidence. Considering the above, I have no hesitation to say that the above case is not a usual murder case, but a highly sensitive and high-stakes case of double murder, which warrants earlier and expeditious disposal of the same. 14. The speedy trial of offences is one of the basic objectives of the criminal justice delivery system. The concept of speedy trial was originated from the Magna Carta. No doubt, our Indian Constitution did not guarantee the right to speedy trial at the beginning, but there has been sea-saw of changes in interpreting the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of its decisions, has interpreted the Article 21 so as to include right to speedy trial as a fundamental right and gave a permanent Constitutional status. At the beginning, the right to speedy trial has been recognized as an indispensable right of the accused and that was solely available to the accused. But subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments elaborated the importance of the speedy trial in not only safeguarding the rights of the accused, but also the victim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattiram and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2012 4 SCC 516 , has reiterated the importance of a speedy trial for both the accused and the victim, and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “46. At this juncture, we would like to refer to two other concepts, namely, speedy trial and treatment of a victim in criminal jurisprudence based on the constitutional paradigm and principle. The entitlement of the accused to speedy trial has been repeatedly emphasized by this Court. It has been recognised as an inherent and implicit aspect in the spectrum of Article 21 of the Constitution. The whole purpose of speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay. It is a sacrosanct obligation of all concerned with the justice dispensation system to see that the administration of criminal justice becomes effective, vibrant and meaningful. The concept of speedy trial cannot be allowed to remain a mere formality (see Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Moti Lal Saraf v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar). 47. While delineating on the facets of speedy trial, it cannot be regarded as an exclusive right of the accused. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Moti Lal Saraf v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar). 47. While delineating on the facets of speedy trial, it cannot be regarded as an exclusive right of the accused. The right of a victim has been given recognition in Mangal Singh and Anr. v. Kishan Singh and ors.[ (2009) 17 SCC 303 ] wherein it has been observed thus: - "Any inordinate delay in conclusion of a criminal trial undoubtedly has highly deleterious effect on the society generally and particularly on the two sides of the case. But it will be a grave mistake to assume that delay in trial does not cause acute suffering and anguish to the victim of the offence. In many cases the victim may suffer even more than the accused. There is, therefore no reason to give all the benefits on account of the delay in trial to the accused and to completely deny all justice to the victim of the offence." 15. In Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1994 3 SCC 559, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the right to a speedy trial is not only an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration, to minimise anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation and to limit the possibility of impairing the ability of an accused to defend himself but also there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial. 16. It is pertinent to mention that it is the right of both the accused and the victims that a criminal case should conclude as expeditiously as possible. Now it is settled law that the guarantee under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution embraces both the life and liberty of the accused as well as interest of the victim, his near and dear ones as well as of the society at large. 17. I am aware that the accused involved in the above case are not before this Court in the present petition. Admittedly, all the accused are in judicial custody. As already pointed out, the very concept of speedy trial was originated to benefit the accused and later, the concept is made applicable not only to the accused and the victim, but also to the society at large. Admittedly, all the accused are in judicial custody. As already pointed out, the very concept of speedy trial was originated to benefit the accused and later, the concept is made applicable not only to the accused and the victim, but also to the society at large. Hence, by giving a direction for a speedy trial, the accused would not be prejudiced, provided the trial is conducted fairly. Generally, a trial would only mean a fair trial and similarly, a speedy trial would only mean a speedy fair trial. No doubt, the petitioner has quoted the legal maxim “justice delayed is justice denied”. I am duty bound to refer an another proverb “justice hurried is justice buried.” 18. Some years back, there was a trend in completing the investigation and concluding the trial and passing of judgment of conviction within a very short period of time ranging from 15 days to 30 days, since the date of occurrence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anokhi Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2020 SC 232 , wherein the trial was completed in 12 working days, has deprecated that practice and set aside the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by the trial Court and the High Court, and ordered for denova trial and it is necessary to refer the following passage: “18. Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in criminal matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal, the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice.” 19. The basic norms, which ensure justice cannot be over looked in achieving the goal of speedy justice and one has to balance the consideration of the speed and justice. The basic norms, which ensure justice cannot be over looked in achieving the goal of speedy justice and one has to balance the consideration of the speed and justice. Since because a direction is given for a speedy trial, that does not mean that the trial has to be conducted at lightning speed by throwing the fundamentals of the criminal jurisprudence to the wind. The trial judge is required to ensure that all the rights given under the code of Criminal Procedure to both the accused and the prosecution are protected and safeguarded and all the opportunities available under the code are afforded to both the parties during the trial. 20. In the case on hand, it is informed that the prosecution has cited 105 witnesses and as already pointed out, there are 9 accused in the above case. The trial is yet to be commenced. It is also pertinent to mention that while conducting the trial in sensitive cases, like the case on hand, the trial Court should be cautious with the parallel trial conducted by the media, popularly referred as 'media trial' and is duty-bound to decide the case uninfluenced by the opinion of others. 21. In the present case also, the trial Court shall proceed with the case uninfluenced by the outbursts referred at the beginning of the order and the observations made by this Court, as they are made only for the purpose deciding the present petition. 22. Considering the above and also the fact that the respondent has not raised any objection, this Court is inclined to grant the relief sought for. The learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai shall make all endeavour at his command to conduct the trial expeditiously and dispose of the case in S.C.No.470 of 2020, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 23. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.