Delhi HC refuses deadline for Aaftab Poonawala trial in Shraddha Walkar case
The Delhi High Court refused to fix a timeline for concluding the Shraddha Walkar murder trial, observing that proceedings were being held daily. It also requested authorities to expedite examination of overseas witnesses, while noting that testimonies of 157 witnesses had been completed
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to set a timeline for the conclusion of trial in the Shraddha Walkar murder case against accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala, stating that the proceedings were already happening on a day-to-day basis.
“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,” Justice Madhu Jain said while dealing with a petition filed by the deceased’s brother.
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 Delhi Police, Poonawala allegedly dismembered her body, kept the body parts in a fridge, and disposed of the pieces in desolate places across the city over several days to avoid getting caught.
The body parts were discovered later. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the case was proceeding in a tardy manner and at this rate, the trial was not likely to conclude in the coming years.
Senior advocate Amit Prasad, appearing for Delhi Police, informed that the trial court was already taking up the case on a day-to-day basis, except on Saturdays and Sundays.
He said out of more than 200 witnesses, testimonies of 157 had already been concluded. On a request by the senior lawyer, the court requested the ministries of home affairs and external affairs to expeditiously facilitate the examination of certain overseas witnesses, as and when required by the trial court.
The court closed the proceedings on the petition. Petitioner Shreejay Vijay Walkar contended in his plea that the criminal trial in the case had been pending for an inordinately long period without any justifiable reason. Such delay, he said, frustrated the administration of criminal justice and defeated the constitutional mandate of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
