Patna High Court Directs Special Training Of a Trial Judge for Correct Legal Understanding

0
Patna High Court, Offence Punishable u/s 376

Case: Deepak Mahto @ Deepak Kumar vs The State of Bihar [CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2932 of 2019]

Excerpt

The Patna High Court remarked that the Trial Judge cited Sanskrit shloka and ghazals for confirming the Appellants conviction. Thus, it overruled the judgement and proposed special training for the judge at Judicial Academy.

Facts

The Prosecution alleged that the Appellant entered the house of the Prosecutrix as a TV mechanic. He further raped the minor victim. Later, he was apprehended by the family and handed over to the police. The Appellant charged under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act in a police case. During the trial, the Appellant got alleged for an attempt to rape. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 18 of the POCSO Act. Thus, the aggrieved Appellant filed the instant Criminal Appeal. 

Arguments Advanced

Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the allegation against the Appellant in the instant case was not evident by any of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the Trial Judge alleged to misunderstood the legal principles by relying upon the statement of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel argued that neither the doctors who examined the victim injury report were produced by the prosecution. Thus, he pleaded that the conviction should not be based on hearsay evidence.

While the learned counsel for State submitted that no further corroboration was required as the prosecutrix was a reliable witness. He thus prayed for the confirmation of the judgment of conviction. 

Court’s Observations

The Hon’ble Justice Birendra Kumar observed that a trial Judge having the power to award a death sentence must have the correct knowledge of legal principles and zeal. It ruled that lack of legal knowledge led to a miscarriage of justice and unnecessary harassment to the parties. It remarked, the law didn’t support biases and prejudices, conjectures and surmises and personal views contrary to the material on the record. Thus, the Court held that the trial Court accepted the statements of the Prosecutrix before her examination as substantive evidence. But the statements under Sec. 154, 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. should be used for corroboration and contradictions.

Thus, the Court set aside the sentence observing that the evidence brought out in the trial did not disclose the commission of any offence. Moreover, the Director of Bihar Judicial Academy should provide a copy of both the judgments of the instant case. Thereby ensuring the proper academic training for the judicial officers. Also, the instant matter should be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for the needful.

Judgement

The Hon’ble Court allowed the instant petition. Further, the Court released the Appellant and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.

 

Click here to view the Judgement


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 Tweet
 Share
 Telegram
 WhatsApp
 Copy
 E-mail
 Tweet
 Share
 Telegram
 WhatsApp
 Copy
 E-mail
 Tweet
 Share
 LinkedIn
 Reddit
 Telegram
 WhatsApp
 Copy
 E-mail
Exit mobile version