CASE NAME	Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397
CITATION	AIR 2017 SC 1079, (2017) 66 OCR 904, AIR 2017 SC (CRIMINAL) 609, 2017 (2) ADR 549
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Amitava Roy
PETITIONER	Asha Ranjan
RESPONDENT	State of Bihar and Others
DECIDED ON	15th February 2017

INTRODUCTION

The case of Asha Ranjan vs. State of Bihar and Others, which the Supreme Court of India decided on February 15, 2017, revolves around the cruel murder of Rajdev Ranjan, a prominent journalist and bureau chief of a regional daily in Siwan, Bihar. The matter was brought before the court on February 15, 2017. An act that is believed to have been coordinated by Mohammad Shahabuddin, a prominent criminal and politician with a considerable criminal record that includes many convictions and numerous pending trials, is said to have resulted in Ranjan’s death on May 13, 2016. 

Asha Ranjan, the petitioner and widow of the deceased, filed a writ petition in reaction to the murder of her husband. The petitioner sought numerous important remedies under the petition. As a result of her concerns regarding Shahabuddin’s influence inside the local prison system and the possibility that he might interfere with the legal process, she made a request to move him from Siwan Jail in Bihar to Tihar Jail in Delhi. Furthermore, in order to guarantee impartiality and the safety of all parties concerned, the petitioner pushed for the trials that are currently pending to be handled using video conference. This would reduce the likelihood of intimidation or harm occurring during the proceedings. Additionally, she inquired about the possibility of initiating formal inquiries against additional individuals who were suspected of conspiring in the murder. This would ensure that a thorough examination into the facts surrounding the crime would be conducted. 

The deliberations that took place in this case by the Supreme Court highlight the commitment of the judicial system to uphold the rule of law, ensure fair trial standards, and protect the rights and safety of victims and their families. This commitment is especially important in situations that involve influential individuals who are capable of undermining the judicial process.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The admissibility of Exhibits P-1 and P-9 was crucial. Exhibits P-1, a letter from the deceased’s father to the Superintendent of Police, and P-9, a confidential letter from the Superintendent to the Deputy Inspector General, were crucial to the prosecution’s case. The introduction of these papers without cross-examination violated natural justice and the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court stressed that unconfirmed papers compromise judicial proceedings.

The Court also examined the credibility of important eyewitnesses close relatives of the deceased who had testified differently in a previous trial about the same occurrence. Their revised testimony in the subsequent trial cast doubt on their credibility. The Court recognized discrepancies, especially in murder cases, make evidence unreliable.

The Supreme Court also noted procedural errors in the investigation. The initial trial acquitted a different set of accused due to poor investigation and the real criminals not being brought to trial. The inquiry that led to the current appellants’ prosecution after a long time failed to address these concerns, weakening the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in overturning the appellants’ acquittal. Using inadmissible documents and untrustworthy witnesses failed to fulfill criminal proof criteria. Focusing on procedural fairness and reliable evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal and the appellants’ innocence. This ruling shows the judiciary’s dedication to legitimate convictions and protecting persons from miscarriages of justice.

ISSUES RAISED

• Does this Court have the power under Articles 32 and 142 to transfer an accused from one state to another and conduct ongoing trials via video conferencing?
• Should the transfer violate Article 21 of the Constitution and be permitted to founder?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

The petitioners focused on the third respondent, Mohammad Shahabuddin, and his vast criminal actions. They described his numerous convictions, the harsh penalties issued, and the slow pace of ongoing proceedings in Siwan, all of which were linked to the atmosphere of terror he allegedly created. Shahabuddin’s categorization as a “history-sheeter Type-A,” indicating an individual judged beyond reform, was stressed to highlight his continued rejection of the law. The petitioners stated that his audacious actions had upset the victims and society as a whole. They accused him of conspiring with jail officials, intimidating witnesses to stymie their pursuit of truth and justice, and flagrantly breaching prison rules. Despite his incarceration, Shahabuddin was allegedly able to wield power, establish a parallel administration, and commit crimes at will.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent

In defense, senior counsel Mr. Naphade claimed that moving Shahabuddin to a prison outside Bihar needed parliamentary support. He claimed that such a move would violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, especially given the 45 cases Shahabuddin faced. Mr. Naphade argued that any government action affecting an individual’s rights must be legitimate and not arbitrary. He argued that an order under Article 142 authorizing such a transfer would violate substantive law, noting that Article 142 is intended to provide perfect justice, not to legislate. Furthermore, he contended that sending Shahabuddin outside of his home state without express legal procedures would violate his rights under Article 21. Mr. Naphade questioned the petitioners’ reliance on equitable arguments, claiming that equity should give way to legislative measures. He highlighted that Shahabuddin’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 should not be jeopardized and that, in this case, there was no need to balance competing interests because the major objective was to preserve the third respondent’s constitutional rights. 

JUDGMENT

The fair trial, which is constitutionally protected as a substantive right under Article 21 as well as legislative protection, raises concerns about a potential conflict with the victim(s)’ or society’s collective/interest. When there is an intra-conflict over the same fundamental right based on real perceptions, it is the constitutional courts’ responsibility to assess the interests of society as a whole when promoting and instilling the Rule of Law. A fair trial is not what the accused seeks in the name of fairness. A fair trial must satisfy the individual’s need for ultimate justice, but it is subservient and would not triumph if a fair trial required the transfer of criminal procedures. An individual’s wrongful act cannot undermine the right to a fair trial because that interest is more closely related to the Rule of Law, particularly in criminal proceedings. An accused cannot be allowed to disregard the foundations of trial in the name of fairness. 

In the case of a fair trial, the balance between the two views would be determined by the facts and circumstances, which would be balanced against constitutional standards and sensibility, as well as the greater public interest. Section 3 of the 1950 Act does not prevent the court from passing an order transferring an accused or convicted person from one jail in one state to another prison in another state because it merely limits the exercise of power by the government.
The Court, in exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, cannot curtail citizens’ fundamental rights and pass orders in violation of substantive provisions based on fundamental policy principles; however, when a case of this nature arises, it may issue appropriate directions to ensure that the criminal trial is conducted in accordance with the law. The Court’s job and duty is to provide a free and fair trial. 

The submission that this Court, in exercising equity jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, cannot transfer the accused from Siwan Jail to any other jail in another State is unacceptable because the basic premise of the argument is incorrect, as the Court is not exercising equity jurisdiction while addressing the issue of fair trial.

CONCLUSION

In the historic case of Asha Ranjan vs. State of Bihar & Others, the Supreme Court of India addressed fundamental problems involving the administration of justice, specifically the right to a fair trial and the safety of those participating in judicial proceedings.

Asha Ranjan, widow of slain journalist Rajdev Ranjan, filed a petition to transfer the accused, Mohammad Shahabuddin, from Siwan Jail in Bihar to Tihar Jail in Delhi. She noted his supposed influence in the local prison system, which she claimed could delay the judicial process and jeopardize her and her family’s safety. The Court emphasized the significance of these issues, emphasizing the fear and intimidation that persisted in Siwan. It highlighted that the right to a fair trial applies to the accused, the victims, and society at large. The Court stated that when a fair trial is compromised by external forces, such as the influence of a strong accused, it is the judiciary’s responsibility to take corrective action to safeguard justice.

In its decision, the Supreme Court ordered Mohammad Shahabuddin’s transfer to Tihar Jail, emphasizing the importance of ensuring a fair and impartial trial. The Court ruled that its constitutional powers under Article 142 allowed it to issue such orders necessary to provide comprehensive justice in any dispute or matter before it. This ruling upheld the idea that the judiciary has the right to act decisively when the integrity of the legal process is jeopardized.

The Asha Ranjan case is a major precedent in Indian jurisprudence, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in protecting victims’ rights and upholding the integrity of the judicial process. It emphasizes that the right to a fair trial applies to all parties involved, and that the courts have a responsibility to act when external forces threaten this right.