Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has raised concerns about the conduct of the high court judges, noting that it has contributed to a prevailing fear among trial court judges. Court observed that in several instances where the accused is deserving of acquittal, presiding officers of the trial courts opt for convictions and sentencing to avoid the possibility of scrutiny or repercussions from the high court.

Court was dealing with criminal appeals filed against a 2010 judgment and order passed by a Sessions Court in Aligarh in a dowry death case.

A division bench comprising Justices Siddharth and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi highlighted that in 2010, a single judge of the high court had issued notice to the District and Sessions Judge of Aligarh, questioning the acquittal of the accused under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 304-B (dowry death), 201 (disappearance of evidence), and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act despite a presumption against them u/S 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the Sessions Judge had convicted the accused for criminal intimidation under Section 506(I) of the IPC.

In 2010, the single judge bench had further directed the matter to be referred to the Chief Justice without waiting for the District and Sessions Judge's response or evaluating the adequacy of the reply.

The division bench said, "Such conduct of the high court is responsible for the fear on the part of the judicial officers in the trial court".

In the appeals, the division bench found several issues with the prosecution’s case, particularly the delay in filing the FIR and discrepancies in witness testimonies.

Court found that there was no conclusive evidence proving that the victim was tortured specifically for dowry just before her death. It considered medical evidence that supported the appellants' claim that the victim accidentally fell from the roof while talking on the phone.

Conclusively, court upheld the trial court’s judgment, maintaining the appellants’ acquittal for the serious charges, as well as, set aside the trial court's judgment regarding the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 506 Part 1 IPC.

The division bench acquitted the appellants of all charges.

More importantly, court directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to possibly now-retired trial judge, affirming that his original decision was correct, except for the minor error of conviction under Section 506 IPC.

Court asked the office to make every endeavour to search the then District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh to let him know that he did not commit any error.

Case Title: Virendra Singh And Others v. State of U.P.