Justices Gita Mittal and RK Gauba of the Delhi High Court yesterday gave dissenting opinions in a case concerning murder of a youth by five men..The incident had happened in 2009 when the victim was shot dead. The Additional Sessions Judge had awarded the five accused life imprisonment and they had appealed against that decision to the High Court..While on one hand Justice Gauba found no merit in the appeals and declared them “liable to be dismissed”, Justice Mittal leaned towards allowing the appeal and setting aside the trial court order..Justice Gauba based his judgment on the analysis of the police reports, forensic reports and findings of the trial judge while Justice Mittal based her decision keeping in mind the “solemn caution” posed by KT Thomas, J. in State of Haryana v. Bhagirath. She quoted the judgment in the very beginning of her opinion, stating,.“…Any restraint by way of abundant caution need not be entangled with the concept of the benefit of doubt. Abundant caution is always desirable in all spheres of human activity. But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. .The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. .Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused.”.Interestingly, Justice Gauba has penned some interesting remarks on the dissenting opinion of the other judge..“I had penned this opinion in September – October last year, drafting it for the bench to return a decision dismissing all the appeals thereby upholding the conviction. .Upon receiving copy of a totally divergent opinion, prepared with great labour and erudition by my learned senior colleague on the bench, Gita Mittal, J, I am obliged to suitably modify the document and also now present it as “my” opinion and consequently replacing such words as “we” and “our”, wherever they occur in the original draft with “I” and “my”.”.Agreeing to disagree, Justice Mittal has said,.“I have had the privilege of reading the judgment proposed by my ld. brother R.K. Gauba, J. with tremendous erudition in criminal law and the wide experience on the subject at his command. However, I have carefully scrutinized the record of the case, the impugned judgment as well as the proposed judgment more than once.. It would have been very easy to agree with the ld. trial judge. At first blush, it would seem difficult to disagree with the findings and conclusions of my ld. Brother. With profound respect to the views expressed, I find myself unable to agree with either the findings reached by my ld. Brother or the conclusions that these appeals deserve to be dismissed.”.The appeals will now come up before the Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice, G Rohini in due course of time..Read the full judgment here:.Image courtesy: Delhi High Court website
Justices Gita Mittal and RK Gauba of the Delhi High Court yesterday gave dissenting opinions in a case concerning murder of a youth by five men..The incident had happened in 2009 when the victim was shot dead. The Additional Sessions Judge had awarded the five accused life imprisonment and they had appealed against that decision to the High Court..While on one hand Justice Gauba found no merit in the appeals and declared them “liable to be dismissed”, Justice Mittal leaned towards allowing the appeal and setting aside the trial court order..Justice Gauba based his judgment on the analysis of the police reports, forensic reports and findings of the trial judge while Justice Mittal based her decision keeping in mind the “solemn caution” posed by KT Thomas, J. in State of Haryana v. Bhagirath. She quoted the judgment in the very beginning of her opinion, stating,.“…Any restraint by way of abundant caution need not be entangled with the concept of the benefit of doubt. Abundant caution is always desirable in all spheres of human activity. But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. .The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. .Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused.”.Interestingly, Justice Gauba has penned some interesting remarks on the dissenting opinion of the other judge..“I had penned this opinion in September – October last year, drafting it for the bench to return a decision dismissing all the appeals thereby upholding the conviction. .Upon receiving copy of a totally divergent opinion, prepared with great labour and erudition by my learned senior colleague on the bench, Gita Mittal, J, I am obliged to suitably modify the document and also now present it as “my” opinion and consequently replacing such words as “we” and “our”, wherever they occur in the original draft with “I” and “my”.”.Agreeing to disagree, Justice Mittal has said,.“I have had the privilege of reading the judgment proposed by my ld. brother R.K. Gauba, J. with tremendous erudition in criminal law and the wide experience on the subject at his command. However, I have carefully scrutinized the record of the case, the impugned judgment as well as the proposed judgment more than once.. It would have been very easy to agree with the ld. trial judge. At first blush, it would seem difficult to disagree with the findings and conclusions of my ld. Brother. With profound respect to the views expressed, I find myself unable to agree with either the findings reached by my ld. Brother or the conclusions that these appeals deserve to be dismissed.”.The appeals will now come up before the Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice, G Rohini in due course of time..Read the full judgment here:.Image courtesy: Delhi High Court website
