A murder retrial after 24 years

MUMBAI: Almost a quarter-century after being arrested, charged and tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for a double murder, a
former Indian Navy midshipman will now have to face a fresh trial. The supreme court last week dismissed K D S Bedi’s appeal against a Bombay high court order and, upholding the HC judgment, sent him back to the magistrate’s court for proceedings to start anew.

Bedi was accused of gunning down two of his colleagues—midshipman Om Prakash Dube and Hanuman Singh, loading seaman and sentry on board INS-Ranjit, a missile destroyer—after a row in Mumbai harbour in November 1985. He had then jumped into the sea and was arrested after a chase. He later pleaded insanity, which was rejected by the court.

It’s a rare case in criminal history, and the first time that the SC has sent back a matter for fresh proceedings because Court Martial rules were not followed, said lawyers. The fault lay in the Mumbai magistrate’s bypassing of a mandatory procedural provision under the Court Martial Act when the case first came up before him almost 24 years ago, after Bedi was arrested. The magistrate should have first written to the naval officers and asked them if they’d consider a court martial against the accused. Only if they denied it could the magistrate proceed under the ordinary law for civilians. Instead, the magistrate committed the case directly to the sessions court for trial.

The sessions court held Bedi guilty of murder in January 1988 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The matter went in appeal soon afterwards. After spending 11 and a half months in jail, Bedi was out on bail as the case was in appeal. Only last month, after hearing Bedi’s counsel Nitin Pradhan, who raised the issue of a faulty procedure, did the Bombay high court set aside the verdict and sent the case back to the magistrate.

Bedi was still not satisfied and moved the supreme court recently, where his counsel K T S Tulsi appeared for him along with lawyer Maheen Pradhan. Their arguments that it would be a “miscarriage of justice to put him on trial again’’ cut no ice with the apex court, which said that rules had to be followed.

Bedi was just 23 years old when the crime occurred, and lost his job. He subsequently got married and has two children aged 15 and 17. He himself is almost 50 now, and suffers diabetes and psychiatric troubles, but as an only son, looks after his 77-year-old mother and ailing 82-year-old father.

The prosecution is now worried that there no witnesses may be available for trial or, if any are traced they may have a tough time recalling the incident from memory. More significantly, after its verdict, the sessions court gave the murder weapon back to the navy and hence the crucial piece of evidence is now no longer in the court’s custody.
Nitin Pradhan said, “It was our stand that it was an accident. Besides, we had always said that we did not delay the trial and had pointed out to both the lower courts the mandatory rules regarding the criminal trial of defence personnel. But it was only the high court which finally heard us. Why should the accused be penalised now?’’ However, he adds, “The conviction and sentence has been set aside and that’s what’s important.’’
The high court had given December 2009 as the deadline for completing the fresh trial. The new trial for Bedi, who is on bail, will mean that evidence must be produced from scratch, and witnesses must be called again.