Judge Is Not A Mere Recording Machine; Must Actively Search For Truth In Trial : Supreme Court Sends Back Death Penalty Matter To HC

“A fair trial is one in which the rules of evidence are honored, the accused has competent counsel, and the judge enforces the proper court room procedures - a trial in which every assumption can be challenged.”

The Court observed that free and fair trial is sine-qua-non of Article 21 of Indian Constitution. It elucidated:

“If the criminal trial is not free and fair, then the confidence of the public in the judicial fairness of a judge and the justice delivery system would be shaken. Denial to fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as to the victim and the society. No trial can be treated as a fair trial unless there is an impartial judge conducting the trial, an honest, able and fair defence counsel and equally honest, able and fair public prosecutor. A fair trial necessarily includes fair and proper opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused and opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence.”

The appeal assailed Patna High Court’s decision that had upheld the conviction and death sentence of the accused. The Bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra, set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matter back to the High Court for deciding the death reference afresh.

Previous report can be read here.

Court’s Observations on Fair Trial

What is the genesis of the concept of a fair trial?

At the outset, the Court opined that the concept of a fair trial has a very impressive ancestry, is rooted in history, enshrined in the Constitution, sanctified by religious philosophy and juristic doctrines and embodied in the statute intended to regulate the course of a criminal trial. Its broad features and ingredients have, in course of time, been concretised into well recognised principles, even though there are grey areas, which call for further legal thought and research.

India follows the accusatorial or adversarial system

The Court emphasized that for the dispensation of criminal justice, India follows the accusatorial or adversarial system of common law. In the accusatorial or adversarial system, the accused is presumed to be innocent; prosecution and defence each put their case; judge acts as an impartial umpire and while acting as a neutral umpire sees whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or not.

Legal duty of a Judge to take an active role in the proceedings in order to find the truth to administer justice

The Court further noted that truth is the cherished principle and is the guiding star of the Indian criminal justice system. For justice to be done truth must prevail. Truth is the soul of justice. The sole idea of criminal justice system is to see that justice is done. Justice will be said to be done when no innocent person is punished and the guilty person is not allowed to go scot free.

The role of a judge in dispensation of justice after ascertaining the true facts no doubt is very difficult one. In the pious process of unravelling the truth so as to achieve the ultimate goal of dispensing justice between the parties the judge cannot keep himself unconcerned and oblivious to the various happenings taking place during the progress of trial of any case. No doubt he has to remain very vigilant, cautious, fair and impartial, and not to give even a slightest of impression that he is biased or prejudiced either due to his own personal convictions or views in favour of one or the other party. This, however, would not mean that the Judge will simply shut his own eyes and be a mute spectator, acting like a robot or a recording machine to just deliver what stands feeded by the parties.

Thereafter, the Court highlighted the Malimath Committee on Judicial Reforms which elaborately discussed the paramount duty of Courts to search for truth. One of the observations made by the Committee was that “For the common man truth and justice are synonymous. So when truth fails, justice fails. Those who know that the acquitted accused was in fact the offender, lose faith in the system”

Moving forward, it was observed that on several occasions the Apex Court has condemned the passive role played by the Judges and emphasized the importance and legal duty of a Judge to take an active role in the proceedings in order to find the truth to administer justice and to prevent the truth from becoming a casualty. A Judge is also duty bound to act with impartiality and before he gives an opinion or sits to decide the issues between the parties, he should be sure that there is no bias against or for either of the parties to the lis. For a judge to properly discharge this duty the concept of independence of judiciary is in existence and it includes ability and duty of a Judge to decide each case according to an objective evaluation and application of the law, without the influence of outside factors.

The presiding judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine

At the end, the Court opined that if the Courts are to impart justice in a free, fair and effective manner, then the presiding judge cannot afford to remain a mute spectator totally oblivious to the various happenings taking place around him, more particularly, concerning a particular case being tried by him. It went on to say that the fair trial is possible only when the court takes active interest and elicit all relevant information and material necessary so as to find out the truth for achieving the ultimate goal of dispensing justice with all fairness and impartiality to both the parties.

To support the said observation, the Court placed its reliance on Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 191, wherein Justice Chinnappa Reddy observed that if a 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. He must become a participant in the trial by evincing intelligent active interest by putting questions to witnesses in order to ascertain the truth.

'Trial Judge Shouldn't Be A Mute Spectator; Has Duty To Ask Crucial Questions' : Supreme Court While Setting Aside Conviction In Murder Case

Role and Duty of the High Court

The Apex Court, discontent with the impugned judgment, opined that that High Court had completely overlooked the relevant aspects of the case. “What was expected of the High Court to do in such circumstances?”

Thereafter, the Court enumerated several provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Crpc)to demonstrate the wide powers of the High Court. According to Section 366, when a Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings must be submitted to the High Court and the sentence of death is not to be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. Section 367 then proceeds to lay down the power of the High Court to direct further enquiry to be made or additional evidence to be taken. Section 368, thereafter, lays down the power of the High Court to confirm the sentence so imposed or annul the conviction. One of the powers which the High Court can exercise is one under Section 368(c) of the Crpc and that is to “acquit the accused person”. Pertinently, the power to acquit the person can be exercised by the High Court even without there being any substantive appeal on the part of the accused challenging his conviction. These provisions thus entitle the High Court to direct further enquiry or to take additional evidence and the High Court may, in a given case, even acquit the accused person.

The Court went on to say that ordinarily, in a criminal appeal against conviction, the appellate court, under Section 384 of the CrPC, can dismiss the appeal, if the Court is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for interference, after examining all the grounds urged before it for challenging the correctness of the decision given by the Trial Court.

The position is, however, different where the appeal is by an accused who is sentenced to death, so that the High Court dealing with the appeal has before it, simultaneously with the appeal, a reference for confirmation of the capital sentence under Section 366 of the CrPC. On a reference for confirmation of sentence of death, the High Court is required to proceed in accordance with Sections 367 and 368 respectively of the CrPC and the provisions of these Sections make it clear that the duty of the High Court, in dealing with the reference, is not only to see whether the order passed by the Sessions Judge is correct, but to examine the case for itself and even direct a further enquiry or the taking of additional evidence if the Court considers it desirable in order to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the convicted person.

Also from the judgment- Section 162 CrPC Does Not Prevent A Trial Court From Putting Questions To Witnesses Suo Motu To Contradict Them : Supreme Court

Case Title: Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar - 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 - 2023 INSC 793

Click here to read the judgment