“Haste is from shaitaan:” Patna High Court sets aside death sentence passed in undue hurry in POCSO case

The Patna High Court last week rejected a death reference by the State in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case, finding that it was decided in a hasty manner by Special Judge Shashi Kant Rai [The State of Bihar v Md. Major]..A Division Bench of Justices AM Badar and Rajesh Kumar Verma remanded the case for fresh trial from the stage preceding framing of charge.“It is interesting that there is a saying in Arabic to the effect that ‘haste is from shaitaan’. In formulating and effecting the justice system, the judges should be made more efficient to be able to deliver justice in a timely and not a hurried manner,” the Court noted..The death sentence was ordered by Special Judge Shashi Kant Rai who had been placed under suspension from February this year, proceedings against whom were later dropped after the Supreme Court's intervention. He was suspended for convicting and sentencing a man to life imprisonment for sexual assault of a minor after having heard the case for one day, and for issuing a death sentence after hearing a case for four days.The top court had said that it would be in the best interests of everyone involved if the disciplinary proceedings against the judge were dropped, especially since it may send a negative message to other judges as well..[BREAKING] Patna High Court recalls decision to suspend POCSO judge after Supreme Court intervention .The High Court, in the case at hand, also observed that the trial court had failed to act neutrally while conducting the trial.“It is not possible to infer that the accused was fairly dealt with by an unbiased Judge in an atmosphere of judicial calm.”.While highlighting that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not contemplate recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses immediately on the very same day after framing of the charge, the Court said,"For adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Trial Court is therefore supposed to adjourn the case for recording evidence of prosecution after a gap of few days after framing of the charge. Ugly hurry in recording evidence of prosecution immediately on the very same day after framing of the charge, particularly, when the accused is an under trial prisoner would defeat the ends of justice and can cause prejudice to both the parties.".The High Court was hearing a death reference wherein a Special POCSO judge had convicted the appellant of rape, offences under the POCSO Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, subsequently sentencing him to death penalty with a direction that he be hanged by neck till he is dead. The order of conviction was passed on January 25 this year, five days after the court took cognizance of the matter..In the case at hand, the accused was not given an opportunity to go through the police papers, and was incommunicado throughout, as he had no means to contact his advocate. He also had no opportunity even to read the charge sheet till the end of the trial, and his applications for adjournment were refused without an opportunity to adduce defence evidence despite his plea of an alibi. Additionally, evidence was recorded in his absence..The accused claimed that he had not been accorded fair trial while stating that everything happened in "ugly haste" without an effective opportunity of hearing..At the very outset, the High Court emphasised that the opportunity of being heard has to be real, reasonable and effective.“The same should not be for name sake – a paper opportunity particularly when the life and liberty of an accused is at the stake.”The Bench said that every judge was required to keep this basic concept of fair play in mind while conducting criminal trial..The fact that the trial court took 40 minutes to pronounce its judgment after completion of arguments was also raised by the High Court as a concern.“Our practical experience says that this is humanly impossible… A lurking doubt arises as to whether the Judgment was kept ready and farcical hearing was granted to the parties.”.Further, it was observed that while a judge can do away with a technicality coming in the way of substantial justice, the entire procedure governing a civil or criminal proceeding should not be considered a mere formality or technicality.“Because once you start belittling the significance of procedure your ability to appreciate its relevance and value to the administration of justice and resultantly your interest and respect for the procedure would start declining,” the judgment stated..Therefore, the Court stated that the manner in which the trial was commenced, conducted and concluded clearly displayed and demonstrated a glaring abuse and misuse of judicial power by the trial court while exercising judicial function.“There is no alternative but to direct for De-novo Trial of the accused from the stage before framing of charge,” it was concluded..The death sentence was answered in the negative, the judgment of the trial court was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh trial..Amicus Curiae Prince Kumar Mishra, APP Satya Narayan Prasad and Vijay Kumar appeared for the State.The accused was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Singh and Advocates Raj Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Sudhanshu Shekhar, Rajnish Kumar and Sarvottam Kumar.Advocate Ranjit Kumar Thakur appeared for the informant..[Read Judgment]