In a powerful and rare admission of systemic delay, the Allahabad High Court has expressed deep regret over a staggering 42-year delay in deciding an appeal in a gruesome rape and murder case from 1979. The Court upheld the conviction of the lone surviving accused and directed him to surrender immediately to serve out the remainder of his life sentence. This ruling not only revives public discourse on delayed justice in the Indian judiciary but also reinforces the Court’s duty to uphold justice — even if belated.
Case Background: A Heinous Crime in 1979
The case, titled Veer Singh and Others v. State of UP, stems from a horrifying incident that took place in April 1979 in Batwaha village, Lalitpur district, Uttar Pradesh. Five accused — Veer Singh, Gangadhar, Dharmlal, Bandhu, and Babu Lal — were found to have forcefully entered a house, looted valuables, and committed violent sexual assaults. Two women were raped, one of whom succumbed to injuries, while another woman was murdered on the spot.
After due trial, the Sessions Court in April 1983 convicted all five men and sentenced them to life imprisonment under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 376 (rape) and Section 396 (dacoity with murder). However, in a turn of events that would become a glaring example of systemic delay, the accused were granted bail within 10 days, on May 2, 1983, pending appeal.
Appeal Remained Pending for Four Decades
While the trial court delivered its verdict within four years of the crime, the appeals filed by the convicts remained in limbo for more than four decades. During this time, four out of five convicts died, and their appeals were declared abated. The High Court, finally taking up the matter in March 2025, pronounced its judgment only with respect to the lone surviving accused, Babu Lal, who is now 74 years old.
Judicial Acknowledgement of Systemic Failure
The Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary acknowledged the extraordinary delay in adjudicating the appeals and issued a strongly worded observation:
“The Court records its regret to the parties in particular and to the society in general that it has taken 42 years for this appeal to be heard. Justice has not been met to the parties, over a very long period of five decades.”
This candid acknowledgment reflects a growing awareness among the judiciary about the adverse impact of judicial delays on both victims and accused. The Court noted that both justice and closure were denied to the victims, their families, and even to the accused who died waiting for a final verdict.
No Leniency for Heinous Offences
On merits, the Court refused to extend any leniency to the surviving convict, Babu Lal. It observed:
“Nothing can be more heinous and barbaric than what was witnessed in the case.”
The Bench held that Babu Lal was directly involved in the rape and assault of one woman and complicit in the dacoity and murder of another. His conviction under Section 396 IPC (dacoity with murder) was affirmed, and the Court stated that such an offender does not deserve any mercy or reduction in sentence merely because of the delay in adjudication.
The Court emphasized:
“Unfortunate as it is, he has remained confined barely for four years after which he was enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal. The sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the learned court below, is thus confirmed.”
Court Orders Surrender
Babu Lal, who had been out on bail for over four decades, has now been directed to surrender forthwith. The High Court further directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur, to ensure his arrest in case he fails to surrender voluntarily.
This ruling sets a significant precedent in ensuring that conviction orders are not rendered meaningless due to procedural delays.
Legal Representation and Assistance
The Court appreciated the assistance of Advocate Satya Prakash, who was appointed as amicus curiae, and Advocate LD Rajbhar, who appeared on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Their efforts ensured that justice — though delayed — was finally delivered.
Key Takeaways and Legal Significance
- Judicial Accountability: The Allahabad High Court’s candid acknowledgment of delay signals a shift in judicial culture towards transparency and accountability.
- Delayed Justice Is Denied Justice: The case reinforces the adage that justice delayed is justice denied, as both the victims’ families and some accused died without seeing the conclusion of the trial process.
- Life Sentence Must Be Meaningful: The decision affirms that a life sentence should not be diluted by long-term bail or procedural inaction, especially in cases involving heinous crimes like rape and murder.
- Systemic Reforms Needed: The case underlines the need for judicial reforms, including fast-tracking of criminal appeals, especially those involving grave offences.
- Balance Between Delay and Sentencing: The Court did not allow the passage of time to diminish the severity of punishment, which is significant for deterring future crimes.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Veer Singh and Others v. State of UP is a somber reminder of the institutional delays that plague the Indian legal system. However, it is also a hopeful sign of judicial introspection and a commitment to correcting the course of justice, no matter how long it takes. While the decision may not bring back the victims or undo the decades of injustice, it reaffirms the principle that justice must eventually be done — and seen to be done.
