Back to Schooling: The Madras HC has sent a trial court judge for judicial training

Trial court rulings are often criticised by the higher judiciary, but this time, the Madras High Court has taken a step further. A Bench of Justices S Nagamuthu and N Authinathan was so appalled by the judgment of a trial court judge that they decided to send him to the judicial academy for judicial training..This was revealed in the High Court’s order in an appeal to the judgment delivered by Bharanidharan, Additional and Sessions Judge at Tindivanam, in a criminal case. The case relates to a violent clash between two political factions in Tamil Nadu’s Melpakkam village, in which one person died and many others were injured. As many as fifty persons were accused in the case, with the trial judge sentencing seven of them to life imprisonment..The High Court noted that the convictions were based on the statements of witnesses from one faction. In fact, it went on to say that the investigating officer “suppressed one version, which relates to the injuries sustained by the accused and had preferred to act on the complaint of the prosecution party.” Overturning the trial court judgment, the Bench held,.“In a case of this nature, where the village is factious, the witnesses are partisan and there are too many number of accused, such as 50; when there is every likelihood of false implication of some other people due to animosity and when the FIR itself is doubtful, in our considered view, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the accused.”.The Bench then went on to school the trial judge on basic concepts of the Indian Penal Code..“The charge No.1 is against all the 50 accused under Sections 147, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. We are unable to appreciate the said charge, because there cannot be a charge under Section 147 read with Section 149 and Section 148 read with Section 149 IPC..Sections 147 and 148 are independent penal provisions and Section 149 would create only constructive liability. It shows that the learned trial Judge was not even aware of the basic concept of constructive liability as dealt with in Section 149 IPC.”.The next lesson was on the topic of Section 302 of the IPC, followed by the distinction between hurt and grievous hurt under ss. 324 and 326..“Charge No.1 reflects that the trial Court was convinced that there was unlawful assembly. When that be so, though it may be true that the accused 1 to 12, 14, 16, 17 and 35 were responsible for causing the death of the deceased, the others would also be equally liable to be punished under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, but unfortunately there was no charge….…When the weapon used was knife, which is undoubtedly a dangerous weapon and when the injury caused was a grievous hurt, it is not understandable as to how the trial Court framed charge only under Section 325 IPC against the first accused. Though the first accused has caused grievous hurt with knife on two victims, charge under Section 325 IPC was framed for single count. It is again deplorable.”.Apart from calling the judge’s failure to frame appropriate charges a “gross dereliction of judicial function”, the High Court also came down heavily on the Public Prosecutor..“In the instant case, it is highly shocking that the Public Prosecutor, who conducted the case, was so ignorant of the provisions, which is reflected from the fact that he did not raise any objection regarding the correctness of the charges framed. Had the Public Prosecutor bestowed his attention before the commencement of the examination of witnesses, the charges would have been appropriately altered.”.Moreover, the Bench revealed that they had directed the Registrar to send the trial court judge for judicial training at an earlier date..“We are informed that he accordingly underwent judicial training. We believe that at least now he would have learnt his judicial responsibilities.”.As a parting shot, the Court “regretfully” noted that they might have no choice but to take action against judicial officers in the future, should they be similarly derelict in their duty..“We are also pained to caution the judicial officers that in future, if we come across any such dereliction on the part of the judicial officers, we may have to recommend for appropriate departmental action against such officers when his service comes up for review, under Service Rules, at the age 50 of and 55 and when it comes up for extension at the age of 58. We regret to make these harsh remarks.”.Read the order: