Trial Court Judges Often Convict Innocent Accused To Save Their Career Prospects, Avoid Wrath Of Higher Courts: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that trial court judges often convict the accused in cases of heinous offences despite a clear case of acquittal due to their fear of higher courts.“…they are fearful of wrath of the higher courts in such cases, and only to save their personal reputation and carrier prospects, such judgment and order of conviction are passed,” a bench of...
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that trial court judges often convict the accused in cases of heinous offences despite a clear case of acquittal due to their fear of higher courts.
“…they are fearful of wrath of the higher courts in such cases, and only to save their personal reputation and carrier prospects, such judgment and order of conviction are passed,” a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed.
At the same time, the division bench lamented that the Government did not accept the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 277th Report [on 'Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies'] since there are many cases where the accused booked under heinous crimes do not get acquitted despite clear cases of acquittal.
The Court added that since the government is yet to implement the recommendations of the 277th report of the Law Commission, the violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for wrongly prosecuted and punished would continue unabated.
The Court also said that even in the much-hyped Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, there is nothing in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for such unfortunate ones.
For context, the 277th report of the Law Commission (2018) recommended enactment of a specific legal provision for the redressal of cases of wrongful prosecution—to provide relief to the victims of wrongful prosecution in terms of monetary and non-monetary compensation (such as counselling, mental health services, vocational / employment skills development, etc.) within a statutory framework. Commission also proposed a statutory obligation on the State to compensate the victims of wrongful prosecution with the right to be indemnified by the erring officers.
In its judgment acquitting a murder accused, the Court expressed its disappointment about the fact that a false accusation and its ensuing trauma are beyond any court's ability to compensate financially.
“A virtual death occurs to the personhood of the individual arraigned in the process making it impossible for him to come back to ordinary life with order of acquittal. The lost years of free life cannot be given back to or re-enacted to please him. He and his family suffer for the cause of administration of criminal justice. Cash for casualty has little role to purge the sovereign of this unpardonable sin…The family of such persons also goes through the time and money consuming process of contesting trial, which is so tedious that it itself is not less than a major punishment. Sometimes the family looses all its means of survival in defending its near and dear one in courts at different level,” the Court observed.
The Court noted that if the accused are ultimately acquitted, they find themselves unfit in their family and society. Their place in the family gets filled by other family members, the other family members usurp the property, and they are seldom seen as welcome members after being incarcerated for a long time in jail.
In this regard, the Court suggested that the State could provide monetary compensation to the accused, which may give them some solace. After being acquitted of the unfounded charges levelled against them, they would not be seen as a burden on their family.
The Court made these observations while allowing an appeal of a murder accused challenging his conviction in the case.
In its 27-page judgment, the Court noted that the accused-appellant was not allowed to defend himself against the charge for which he was convicted, and the trial altered the charge even after recording the accused-appellants statement under Section 313 CrPC, which was not appropriate.
The Court also took into account that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case at all. Despite this, the accused was convicted by the trial court, and he had to undergo about 13 years of imprisonment before being released on bail in October 2022.
Considering the plight of such innocent persons, who are wrongfully prosecuted but later acquitted after years, the Court said that our justice delivery system takes little pains to make amends.
“True that at times, positive overtures in constitutional jurisdictions have addressed this issue. But still now no concrete judicial mechanism to have uniform application in cases of wrongful prosecution took shape in our jurisprudence to do some reparation,” the Court further observed.
The Court also stressed that private Law Remedies for the tort of malicious prosecution are not effective remedies for victims of wrongful prosecution, given the tardy pace of civil litigation and the expenses, such as court fees and other litigation costs, involved.
The Court was further of the opinion that any possible act contributing to a wrongful prosecution can be dealt with on the criminal side for securing the conviction of erring state officials and private complainants, launching malicious prosecutions as well.
In this regard, the Court referred to the 'culpable conducts' in Chapters IX and XI of the IPC as handy indicators for constitutional courts and other civil courts to decide how a wrongful prosecution happens, particularly in the context of deviation from the direction of laws relating to investigation, enquiry, and trial.
The division bench also underscored that instead of creating special courts to deal with the claims for compensation as mooted by the Law Commission, pragmatism and convenience demand that the task be done by the court acquitting the accused, be it a trial, appellate, or revisional court.
The Court suggested that, like the provision for compensation to victims of crime (Sections 357 and 357 A Code of Criminal Procedure/ or corresponding sections 395 B.N.S.S. and 396 B.N.S.S), an empowering clause can be conferred on the court acquitting the accused to decide on claims for compensation in a summary and speedy manner.
Appearances
Counsel for Appellant: Amar Singh Kashya, Ajay Sengar, SP Lal
Counsel for Respondent: AGA I Manju Thakur
Case title - Upendra @ Balveer vs. State of U.P.
Case citation :