Delhi HC declines to set deadline for Shraddha Walkar murder trial, notes day-to-day hearings
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to set a time frame for the conclusion of the trial in the Shraddha Walkar murder case, observing that the proceedings against accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala are already being conducted on a day-to-day basis.
Justice Madhu Jain was hearing a petition filed by Shraddha's brother, Shreejay Vijay Walkar, who argued that the criminal trial had been pending for an unduly long period without any justifiable reason. The petition sought a direction to the sessions court to conclude the trial within a fixed timeline, and also asked the trial court to refrain from granting unnecessary adjournments to either party except under exceptional and unavoidable circumstances recorded in writing.
During the hearing, Justice Jain remarked, “It is clear that the trial court is making every endeavour to conclude the trial as soon as possible. No further directions are required as the trial is being conducted on a day-to-day basis.”
Shraddha, who was in a live-in relationship with the accused, was allegedly strangled to death by Poonawala on May 18, 2022. According to the 6,629-page chargesheet filed by the Delhi Police, Poonawala allegedly dismembered the body of the 27-year-old call centre employee, stored the body parts in a refrigerator, and disposed of them at desolate locations over several days to evade detection. The remains were later discovered.
The petitioner's counsel contended that the case was progressing at a slow pace and, at the current rate, the trial was unlikely to conclude in the coming years. However, senior advocate Amit Prasad, appearing for the Delhi Police, informed the court that the trial court was already taking up the case on a day-to-day basis, except on Saturdays and Sundays. He said that out of more than 200 witnesses, the testimonies of 157 had already been completed.
The High Court's refusal to set a specific deadline comes amid concerns over the length of the trial, but the court appears satisfied with the pace at which the trial is proceeding. The case continues to be heard in the sessions court, where the trial is being expedited.
