Verdict in Pallabi's Ramisa murder case in 28 days, while more than 4 million cases remain pending

The trial in the murder case of child Ramisa of Pallabi in the capital has been completed and the verdict delivered in just 28 days. With countless similar murder cases pending in court for years, the swift verdict has brought the issue back into discussion.

More than 4 million cases are currently pending or unresolved in courts across Bangladesh. Of them, about 300,000 cases are under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act. Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Md Asaduzzaman recently gave these figures.

According to lawyers, there is no single reason behind delays in criminal cases. Delays in investigation and in filing the charge sheet, absence of witnesses, the long process of recording testimony and cross-examination, excessive case pressure on courts, limited numbers of judges and benches, and complications in sending records from lower courts to higher courts all lengthen the process.

Supreme Court lawyer Adnan Yazdani said the fact that a verdict was possible quickly in one case does not mean every murder trial can be finished in the same time. The time a trial takes depends on the facts of the case, the number of accused, the number of witnesses, the type of evidence, the complexity of the investigation and legal applications by the defence.

He said one thing is clear from this example: with proper preparation, coordinated effort and effective court management, unnecessary delay can be reduced in at least some cases. But speedy justice does not only mean a quick verdict; evidence must be examined, the defence must have its opportunity, and all conditions of fair justice must be maintained while finishing within a set time.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Motahar Hossain Saju said negligence by the prosecution in criminal cases is noticeable. Witnesses failing to appear on the scheduled date, testimony not being recorded even when a witness does appear, and witnesses staying absent on multiple dates despite court orders all push proceedings back.

In his view, the most time is spent on recording testimony. Instead of taking testimony in fragments date after date, testimony and cross-examination could be completed over two or three consecutive days when needed. Setting 'block dates' considering the court's cause list and the parties' preparation could significantly reduce the time spent on testimony.

He also noted that delays can begin at the investigation stage, before the trial starts. Visiting the scene, collecting evidence, forensic tests, recording witness statements and identifying suspects must all be completed before a charge sheet is filed; a delay at any step delays the trial. He warned, however, that the goal of filing a charge sheet quickly must not harm the quality and neutrality of the investigation.

After a trial ends in a lower court, a fresh wait can begin when the case reaches a higher court. Motahar Hossain Saju said the full records of a lower-court case (the LCR) often do not reach the higher court on time, and a lack of regular reminders can also cause delay.

Rafikus Salekin, general secretary of the human rights organisation Rise for Rights Foundation and a Supreme Court lawyer, said if the number of judges and benches is not adequate compared with the number of cases, it becomes difficult to allocate enough time to each case, increasing the tendency to set later dates.

Motahar Hossain Saju believes changes in court management are necessary for speedy disposal, with effective monitoring by the Law Ministry and a role for the Attorney General's Office. Increasing the number of judges and benches in the higher court and appointing judges as needed could reduce the backlog, he said.