Delhi HC Refuses to Set Timeline for Shraddha Walkar Murder Trial, Cites Day-to-Day Proceedings
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to set a fixed timeline for the conclusion of the trial in the Shraddha Walkar murder case against Aaftab Amin Poonawala, observing that the trial court was already making every effort to expedite the proceedings.
Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while hearing a petition filed by the victim's brother, Shreejay Vijay Walkar, who sought a direction to expedite the trial. The court noted that the trial was progressing on a day-to-day basis and no further directions were necessary.
“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 going on a day to day basis,” the court said.
Walkar, who was in a live-in relationship with the accused, was allegedly strangled by Poonawala on May 18, 2022. According to the 6,629-page chargesheet filed by the Delhi Police, Poonawala allegedly dismembered her body, stored the body parts in a refrigerator, and disposed of them in isolated locations across the city over several days to evade detection. The remains were later discovered.
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial was proceeding in a tardy manner and, at the current pace, was unlikely to conclude in the coming years. The petitioner contended that the prolonged delay was unjustifiable and defeated the constitutional mandate of a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Senior advocate Amit Prasad, representing the Delhi Police, informed the court that the trial was already being conducted on a day-to-day basis, excluding weekends. He noted that out of more than 200 witnesses, testimonies of 157 had already been recorded.
On a request by the senior lawyer, the court asked the Ministries of Home Affairs and External Affairs to facilitate the examination of certain overseas witnesses expeditiously, as and when required by the trial court.
The court then closed the proceedings on the petition.
The case has drawn widespread attention due to the brutal nature of the crime and the manner in which the accused allegedly attempted to conceal it. Legal experts note that while the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, courts often balance it against the need for a fair and thorough examination of evidence, especially in cases involving multiple witnesses and forensic complexities.
The trial court has been recording witness testimony on a regular basis, and the Delhi Police has assured the court of its cooperation in ensuring the smooth progress of the trial. The High Court's decision reflects its confidence in the trial court's ability to manage the proceedings without external timelines.
The petitioner's counsel had earlier argued that the delay in the trial was causing immense distress to the victim's family and that a time-bound conclusion was essential to uphold public confidence in the justice system. However, the court's observation suggests that it considers the current pace of proceedings to be satisfactory.
The next hearing in the trial court is expected to continue with the examination of remaining witnesses. The case remains a significant test of the judicial system's capacity to deliver timely justice in complex criminal matters.
