Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Patel Ashwinkumar Ranchodbhai on 15 May, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2008 CRI. L. J. 3662, (2008) 70 ALLINDCAS 704 (GUJ), 2008 (70) ALLINDCAS 704, (2008) 2 GUJ LR 1748, 2008 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 775
Author: J.R. Vora
Bench: J.R. Vora, M.R. Shah
JUDGMENT J.R. Vora, J.
1. The State has preferred instant Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment and Order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana ( Mr. A.N. Vakil), on 20th of November,2004, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2004, whereby the present respondent, being accused of the said Sessions Case, came to be acquitted for the offences charged against him under Sections 302, 451 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. Learned APP Dipen A Desai for the State and learned Advocate Mr. F.B. Brahmbhatt for the respondent were heard in detail in respect of this Appeal.
3. As per the prosecution case, deceased in the incident, happens to be uncle of accused - respondent herein. Deceased and the accused families were residing in adjoining houses. On 15th of June, 2004, there was a rainfall, and on account of rainfall, the accused was digging a ditch to prevent flowing water and, therefore, the deceased Keshavlal, uncle of the accused, scolded the accused that why the accused was preparing a ditch. Some altercations took place at that time. Thereafter, at about 10' O clock in the night, on the same day, the family members of the deceased went to sleep and at about 3.00 p.m., accused came to the house of the deceased, giving abuses. Deceased Keshavlal awakened. Kiritkumar Keshavlal, complainant in this matter and son of the deceased, brother of the complainant and other son of the deceased also awakened. When they switched on the lights, they noticed that accused had encroached and trespassed in their house with an iron bar in his hands and complainant Kiritkumar accosted him, but even then, accused gave a blow by iron bar on the head of the deceased Keshavlal, who was sleeping on a cot. Due to commotion all the family members of the deceased were awakened and some scuffle ensued between the accused and other family members, but accused ran away and escaped from the spot. Thereafter, complainant Kiritkumar and his younger brother Prakash and uncle Sombhai brought deceased Keshavlal in jeep vehicle at village Vijapur before Dr. Subhashbhai. Doctor informed them that the injury was serious and, therefore, deceased was required to transfer to Lions Hospital at Mehsana in ambulance. So, complainant and his family members were taking deceased to Mehsana Hospital, the deceased died in transit. Therefore, the complainant Kiritkumar filed a complaint before Vijapur Police Station for the above said offences, being Crime Register No. 168 of 2004. The crime was investigated and charge sheet came to be filed against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and made over to the Trial Court. The record reveals that charge was framed against the accused by the Trial Court vide Exhibit-3 on 30th of October, 2004 and accused pleaded not guilty. The record reveals that, therefore, the prosecution examined six witnesses and produced on record documents to prove its case. Prosecution examined Kiritkumar Keshavlal, complainant, vide Exhibit-9; Joitiben Keshavlal Patel, vide Exhibit-11; Prakashbhai Keshavlal Patel, vide Exhibit-12; Kailashben Kiritbhai Patel, vide Exhibit-13 and Ushaben Prakashkumar Patel, vide Exhibit-14. All these witnesses were eye witnesses and the family members of the deceased. All these witnesses happen to be related to the accused and the deceased. The only independent witness which the prosecution examined is PW-6, Exhibit-15, Dr. Pravinbhai Shankarbhai, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased and produced on record the postmortem note. However, all the witnesses i. e. P.W. 1 to P.W.5 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge in his very brief judgment, came to the conclusion that though the death of the deceased Keshavlal was homicidal, but in para 10, in very few lines, came to the conclusion that, the accused was not linked to the crime on account of eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. In para-10 only within few lines, the whole trial came to be disposed of by learned Trial Judge.
4. We have heard learned Counsels appearing in this Appeal to considerable extent. We have gone through the record of the case very carefully. We found that this is a case of failure of justice in which the criminal trial is taken very lightly by all concerned.
5. It is found from the record that after framing of the charge, PW-1 Kiritbhai Keshavlal Patel was examined on 8th of November, 2004 and PW-2 Joitiben also was examined on 8th of November, 2004. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 20th of November, 2004, and the depositions of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 were recorded and on that very day, the learned APP In-charge of the case, vide Exhibit-17, presented purshis for closing of evidence. On the same day, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the arguments were heard and judgment ensued immediately on the same day. In charge sheet, at least 21 witnesses are named. They are the witnesses found during the investigation. List of muddamal shows that muddamal was seized by police during investigation. Important muddamal is article No. 6 i.e. iron bar recovered from the house of the accused in presence of panchas and muddamal articles 9 and 10 are shirt and pant of the accused, recovered from the body of the accused, in the presence of panchas, containing blood stains. Other muddamal articles are the bloodstained clothes of the deceased, mattress of the deceased where he was sleeping and other articles containing bloodstains of the blood of the deceased. We find on record that the Forensic Science Laboratory reports, after analysis, is placed on record by the prosecution vide list at Exhibit-8 at Sl. Nos. 13, 14 and 15. Even then, the learned Trial Judge only considered the evidence of five eye witnesses related to the accused and deceased, and came to a brief conclusion without probing further the case to reach at truth. We are constrained to observe that the trial has been taken very lightly by concerned APP, who without probing further or adducing evidence, filed purshis of closing of evidence at Exhibit-17 wherein without assigning any reason, the learned APP noted in this purshis that Snow prosecution did not want to adduce any evidence and, therefore the prosecution evidence is over. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused gave one application at Exhibit-7 dated 30.10.2004 requesting the learned Sessions Court to produce medical papers related to the accused by submitting that deceased - Patel Keshalal Ishwarbhai caused injury to the accused - Patel Ashwinbhai Ranchodbhai and therefore, it was requested to direct to produce medical papers of the injuries caused to the accused and on the said application, learned Trial Judge passed an order 'fix for hearing'. Thereafter, no order has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, from the aforesaid application - Exhibit-7 submitted on behalf of the accused, even presence of the accused is established. Still, neither the learned Public Prosecutor nor the learned Additional Sessions Judge has bothered to consider the said vital aspect.
6. Crimes in society are real and concrete incident actually occurs. Crimes are not fancy or imagination, which courts are called upon to decide. Therefore, greater responsibilities are to be shouldered by courts while dispensation of justice. Prosecuting agency and investigation agency are also important factor in criminal justice system. Each component must do justice to its role in doing justice to aggrieved persons. The crimes are not affecting the individual, but influences the society as a whole and, therefore, the grave crimes are not against individual but against the society. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. This could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine the social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved through courts of law through the role assigned to a court. Law as a cornerstone of the edifice of order, should meet the challenges confronting the society.
7. We are at pain to observe that neither the learned Trial Judge nor the learned APP endeavoured to find out the truth by probing further the case. Instead, as soon as the witnesses, who were eye witnesses, turned hostile, the Trial Court as well as the learned APP shut the doors towards their pious and prime duty to search for the truth and the trial was closed in extreme hurry. We find that the Investigating Officer, who is named in the charge sheet, could not be examined by the learned APP nor such vigilance could be shown by the Trial Court to reach at the truth. It is not the law that when eye witness turns hostile, the courts should abandon the search for the truth and learned APP should become oblivious to put forward the whole prosecution case and instead of adducing further evidence for search of truth, simply giving purshis in the case to lock the whole case in a cup board so as to ignore completely the heinous crime like murder committed under the nose of the society. The Investigating Officer could have been examined to throw light on the circumstances of the case and could have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt despite eye witnesses turned hostile. Necessary it is to mention that the Investigating Officer draw panchnamas by which iron bar seized from the house of the accused, contained bloodstains, and according to Forensic Science Laboratory, those bloodstains contained the blood group of the deceased. This is not the end but shirt and pant worn by the accused when he was arrested and seized by the Investigating Officer through a panchnama, contained bloodstains, which according to Forensic Science Laboratory report, contained the blood group of the deceased. Learned Trial Judge and prosecuting agency, however, did not bring this evidence on record and adopted Sshutters down approach. It is nowhere so defined in any criminal law of the country that evidence means the evidence of eye witnesses only. Evidence may be in any shape, and in search for the truth, this evidence must be appreciated by the courts of law as evidence in criminal trial to come to the truth. In this case, the learned Trial Judge as well as learned APP both shut their eyes to their duties to explore the truth. The worst thing which we find is that the Forensic Science Laboratory report which is produced by the prosecution requires to be exhibited without formal proof under Sections 293 or 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is neither exhibited by the Trial Court nor any endeavour was made by the learned APP. Besides, we find from the record that accused himself through his Advocate preferred an Application at Exhibit-7 on 30th of October, 2004, wherein the accused prayed before the Court that in the said case, accused also got injuries and the papers relating to the injuries of the accused be called for and be placed on record as the documents were important for the defence of the accused. The learned Trial Judge passed an order dated 30th of October, 2004 that the application was kept for hearing. However, it appears that, no further orders came to be passed below such application. Perhaps, a judicial adjudication after due consideration, could have assisted the Trial Court to arrive at the truth of the matter, which is the sole purpose of the criminal trial.
8. True that criminal justice deals with complex human problems and diverse human beings. On account of relations, witnesses may turn hostile and witnesses may resile when search for the truth is vigorously undertaken through instrumentality of criminal law. In trials, therefore, it becomes the duty of the Judge presiding over a criminal trial, to appreciate the evidence from all corners, and if the evidence is not produced, though available, then, the same could be produced. The courts exist for doing justice to the persons who are affected. As afore-stated, the crimes of such nature like murder are affecting the society. The court is not merely to act as a tape recorder recording the evidence, overlooking the object of trial i.e. to get at the truth. The courts cannot be oblivious to the active role to be played, for which there is not only ample scope but sufficient powers are conferred under the Code. The court has a greater duty and responsibility to render justice in a case where it appears that the role of the prosecuting agency itself is dubious. The courts are expected to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which the courts are sacredly entrusted the dignity and authority and an alert judge actively participating in court proceedings with a firm grip on oars enables the trial smoothly to reach at the truth. The interest of the parties in conducting the trial in such a way so as to gain success is understandable, but the obligation of the Presiding Judge to hold the proceedings as to achieve the dual objectives i.e. search for truth and delivering pure justice cannot be subdued. Wherever necessary, even courts are empowered to curb perjury. This is a fact that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath, make false statements to suit the interest of the parties. Effective and stern action is required to be taken on such a stand, which may be taken upon the witnesses. The mere existence of penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence.
9. We find to our utter shock that so far as this Appeal is concerned, the role of prosecuting agency also appears stigmatic. Witnesses are the eyes and ears of the justice. If the witnesses are incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed and cannot be termed as a fair trial. The incapacitation may be due to various factors. In this case, it may be the relations of the parties because at one hand, the accused was the cousin of the witnesses and the deceased was the father of the complainant and witnesses. It is the cardinal principle in law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the court. Unfortunately, this is a case wherein other evidence besides eye witnesses was available to support the prosecution case was not brought on record by the prosecuting agency nor any attempt was made to show to the court that how the witnesses have failed to support the prosecution case. Evidence of recovery of weapon through panchnama, may not be a discovery, still is a good evidence if proved beyond doubt. Finding bloodstains of group of the deceased on the clothes of the accused as well is a good evidence to support the prosecution besides the direct evidence of eye witnesses. When accused himself files an application that in same case the accused has got injuries and the prosecution as well as court becomes, perhaps, oblivious to bring on record such relevant facts, supporting the search of truth, itself is an example of lack of awareness towards pious duties. Undoubtedly, therefore, the role attributed to learned APP in this trial has been eschewed in hurry of disposal of the trial, which has resulted in failure of justice.
10. It is known and cardinal principle of evidence that even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, the conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff in coming to the conclusion of truth. It also becomes the duty of the court to take into consideration of relevant evidence available and courts are empowered to produce on record such evidence if the prosecution failed in their duties to produce such evidence. The conclusion of a criminal trial must be the outcome of cool deliberations and the scanning of the material by the informed mind of the Judge that leads to determination. How can a prosecuting agency or concerned Trial judge afford to be so perfunctory in dealing with the criminal trial of grave crime of murder.
11. Necessary it is therefore to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar as , the Apex Court observed as under:
75. It is matter of common experience that in recent times there has been sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may not stand the test of cross- examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces as astute lawyer, there is found to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allurence or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or close to powers and muscle men or their associates. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate that expert witnesses and the investigating agencies and other agencies which have an important role to play are also not immune from decline of values in public life. Their evidence sometimes becomes doubtful because they do not act sincerely, take everything in a casual manner and are not able to devote proper attention and time.
76. Thus, in a criminal trial a prosecutor is faced with so many odds. The Court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. These days when crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and society is so much affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of the courts have become much more. Now the maxim "let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in practice, changing world over and courts have been compelled to accept that "society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals". I find this Court in recent times has conscientiously taken notice of these facts from time to time. In the case Inder Singh and Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration ) , Krishna Iyer, J. laid down that "Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes." In the case of State of U.P. v. Anil Singh , it was held that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr. , it was held that Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. In the case of Mohan Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. , it was held that the courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on one hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused.
12. In the case of Zahira Habibulla Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has occasion to deal with the role of the Public Prosecutor. It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Public Prosecutor is not supposed to be a persecutor, yet the minimum that was required to be done, to fairly present the case of the prosecution, was not done. It is further observed that it is as much the duty of the Prosecutor as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and courts should not also play into the hands of such persecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness. In the present case, the Public Prosecutor appears to have acted more as a defence counsel than one whose duty was to present the truth before the Court i.e. by not examining the important witnesses inclusive of the Investing Officer and by not trying to see that vital documentary evidences, such as, Panchnama and FSL report are exhibited. It appears that if Investigating Officer was examined and the documentary evidence which were already on record i.e. Panchanama of place of offence; recovery of clothes of the deceased as well as the accused and FSL report were exhibited, the result would have been different.
13. K.Lack of 'robust judging' has stated in criminal courts need of the hour is 'robust judging'. The trial judge is the linchpin in every case, and he has also its eyes and ears. He is not merely a recorder of facts but a purveyor of all evidence, oral and circumstantial. It is said by him that a good trial judge needs to have a 'third ear' i.e. hear and comprehend what is not said. When a material eye witness, whose beloved relative has been murdered and who has identified the accused in his police statement says in his/her evidence at the trial that he cannot recall the faces or names of anyone, this must obviously excite suspicion in the mind of a truth seeking judge; he (or she) must probe further and question the witness (even if the prosecutor does not do so), as to why he had so stated before the police shortly after the incident and whether he had met with anybody before giving evidence in court or had been tutored or compelled to say what had been just deposed to. No new law is required for this. Only common sense and acquaintance with the facts of life. After having found that witnesses who were already examined were family members of the deceased and also of the accused had retracted their prior statements made to the police soon after the event, and even original complainant also retracted from his earlier statement and when they turned hostile, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have seen the pattern in the case and ought to have been alerted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have, on its own exercised the powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ought to have summoned the police officers who had recorded the statement of some of the material witnesses of the incident. As stated herein above, not only the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to exercise powers under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. but even has not bothered to exhibit relevant documentary evidence which were already on record, which if exhibited, would have been fatal to the evidence. Even FSL report considering the provisions of the Cr.P.C. was straightway required to be exhibited. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, ought to have appreciated that his duty was to find out truth of what actually occurred.
14. Recently in the case of Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 2206, in para 16 and 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
16. The Courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers on Presiding Officers of Court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process. They have to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so that ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This becomes more necessary where the Court has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor is not acting in the requisite manner. The Court cannot afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and Courts could not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness.
17. The power of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its power under Section 311 of the Code. The section consists of two parts i.e (i) giving a discretion to the Court to examine the witness at any stage and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the Court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the Court. Though the discretion given to the Court is very wide, the very width requires a corresponding caution. In Mohan Lal v. Union of India 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the word such as, 'any Court' 'at any stage', or 'any enquiry or trial or other proceedings' 'any person' and 'any such person' clearly spells out that the Section has expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. However, as noted above, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary powers should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds the Court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case - 'essential', to an active and alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the Section is to enable the Court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The power is exercised and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if the Court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of Section 311 but only to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. It is done with an object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth.
It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision that if the Criminal Court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusions, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves.
15. Thus, in the present case, we found that prime and pious duty of the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence for the search of truth is abandoned. However, in hurry of disposal of the case or by perfunctory and disregarding attitude the evidence which is on record of Forensic Science Laboratory and the important evidence of Investigating Officer was hurriedly dispensed with, for no reasons at all on record. The fact that the accused was also injured in the said incident is also ignored by the Trial Court as well as by the learned APP In-charge. No endeavour was made to bring on record that what was the reason for the witnesses to turn hostile and not to support the prosecution case. It is much necessary that the pious duty of dispensation of criminal justice cannot be shifted in the hands of unscrupulous witnesses, who according to their interest, put the whole criminal justice system in doldrums. The net result of casual dealing with the trial is failure of justice affecting the society at large. In such circumstances, therefore, we have no other alternative except to remand the trial to the Trial Court for re-trial with due adherence to the cardinal principle of criminal justice system. We are fortified in our views by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat as , for the principle that whenever it appears to the court that miscarriage of justice has occasioned, it becomes the duty of the appellate court to direct re-trial. We are unable to shut our eyes and close the doors of the social order.
16. In the result, Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal impugned in this Appeal is set aside. The Sessions Case No. 185 of 2004 is remanded to the Trial Court for re-trial after the stage of framing of the charges against the accused and to reach at the conclusion according to law after recording the evidence. Accused - respondent herein is directed to remain present before the Trial Court, and if he fails to present before the Trial Court within reasonable time, the Trail Court shall procure his presence in the trial. Record and Proceedings called for from the Trial Court be transmitted to the Trail Court immediately and without delay of even one day. The Trial Court is further directed to conclude the trial within three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court.