Trial Court Judges Often Convict Accused Despite Clear Grounds For Acquittal To Avoid Action By HC: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi made this observation while dealing with certain criminal appeals filed against a 2010 judgment and order passed by a Sessions Court in Aligarh in a dowry death case.

The Division bench took exception to a show cause notice issued by a Single Judge of the HC in 2010 to the presiding officer of the trial court (District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh).

In the said notice, the presiding officer was asked to explain why he had acquitted the appellants u/S Sections 498-A [Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty], 304-B [Dowry death], and 201 [causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen the offender] and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act despite a presumption against them u/S 113-B of the Evidence Act.

In fact, the single judge had further directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice without waiting for the reply of the District and Sessions Judge and deciding whether the reply of the District and Sessions Judge was satisfactory or not.

In this case, the appellants-accused were only convicted of offences under Section 506(I) IPC (criminal intimidation) and were awarded two years of rigorous imprisonment.

Expressing dissatisfaction with the said issuance of the notice by the single judge, the division bench made the following observations:

“Such conduct of the High Court is responsible for the fear on the part of the Judicial Officers in the trial court and in many cases where the accused deserves clear acquittal, judgment of conviction and order of sentence is passed only because Presiding Officers want to avoid issuance of notice and action by High Court ordered without properly considering their judgments and orders.”

While deciding their appeals, the division bench further agreed with the trial court's conclusion in acquitting the accused/appellants of the above offences. However, the division bench also acquitted the accused applicants of the offence of criminal intimidation.

The Court also directed its office to endeavour to search the then District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, noting that he must have retired by now. It also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to him “so that he may know that he did not commit any error in deciding the case, except the minor error of conviction of appellants u/S 506, Part 1 IPC, which we have rectified.

It may be noted that in response to the show cause notice sent by the single judge, the Judicial officer in question had justified the acquittal of the accused under the offences alleged U/ S 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section ¾ of D.P. Act.

In his reply, he had stated that the offences alleged were not proved against the appellants as the prosecution had failed to prove that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to any cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry, which is one of the vital ingredients for proving the offence of dowry death.

Agreeing with the reply submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, the Division bench specifically noted that the Trial Judge had not committed any mistake in deciding the case and acquitting the appellants of charges under Sections- 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section ¾ of D.P. Act.

“We have also reached the same conclusion. Further, we have found that conviction and sentence of appellants U/S 506 Part 1 IPC was also unwarranted and may have been ordered only for 33 protection of trial court from unwanted notice like the one which was issued by learned Single Judge to the District and Sessions Judge”, the division bench further noted.

The High Court also added that the single judge should not have issued notice to the presiding officer of the trial court merely on the basis of the submission of counsel for the informant without considering the full facts and the law involved in the case.

For context, the case pertained to the death of a woman (Kumari Bhumika) within seven years of her marriage to the accused Manoj. It was the prosecution's case that she was a victim of dowry death; however, the defence had claimed that she had fallen from the roof of the house.

Agreeing with the trial court's judgment of acquitting the accused of major offences, the Division bench held that the court cannot simply pass an order of conviction and sentence if the death of a deceased woman takes place within 7 years of her marriage in abnormal circumstances unless it is proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before she died in connection with demand of dowry.

Case title – Virendra Singh And Others vs. State of UP along with connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 585 

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 585 

Click Here ToRead/Download Judgment