"Judge Ill-Equipped To Administer Justice": Meghalaya HC Slams District Council Court For Trying 'Mentally Unfit' Man For Triple Murder

The Meghalaya High Court recently expressed its displeasure over incompetency of District Council Court which have been authorised by the Governor to take up heinous offences involving tribals and attracting harsh punishment.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh remarked that the State would do well to consider the quality and ability of Judges manning District Council Courts before conferring authority on them to deal with serious matters.

It directed the Law Secretary of the State to ensure future steps are taken cautiously before conferring authority on District Council Courts or Judges "ill-equipped to administer justice" in accordance with the basic tenets of law.

The strong remarks come in the backdrop of the Council Court trying and convicting a mentally unfit person for triple murder of his parents and sibling.

The Court noted that despite a medical status being forwarded to the Council Court by a MIMHANS Psychiatrist, the Court proceeded to record the statement of the accused without referring to his mental condition.

In view such "alarming facts", the High Court remarked that the Judge concerned lacks basic sense of justice and is completely bereft of domain knowledge on the subject.

It remanded the matter back to the trial court to be dealt with in accordance with law, particularly keeping in mind the requirements of Section 329 (Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court) of the Code.

"The trial court will not resume the trial in accordance with Section 331 of the Code or the spirit thereof, till such time an expert opinion is rendered in accordance with law as to the appellant herein being fit to stand trial. In any event, even if the appellant is found fit to stand trial and repeats the confession or admission made earlier, the trial court must look into the evidence and use the confession as another piece of evidence and not the sole material to convict the appellant. Further, the trial court must be mindful of the statutory mandate as to sentencing and not arbitrarily invent a form of punishment for a particular offence which is unknown to law," the Court ordered.

The bench observed that even though CrPC is not applicable to such District Council Courts, yet, fundamental rules of justice need to be followed, particularly in course of a criminal trial.

"Merely because the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution does not require the letter of the Code to be adhered to does not imply that common sense and all fundamental cannons of justice have to be thrown to the wind by the District Council Court...The detailed procedure requires the court to assess, upon obtaining expert medical report, the mental condition of the accused and to not proceed with the trial till such time that the accused is found fit to stand trial so as to be able to make out his defence..."

It added,

"Even if a confession is made by an accused of sound mind, the conviction should not be founded simply on the admission; but should be seen as corroborative material if the evidence otherwise indicates the high likelihood of the commission of the offence by the accused."

Case Title: Shri Bremingstar Mylliem Vs. State of Meghalaya

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 34