Trial judge refers to Sanskrit shloka, gazals by Jagjit Singh in judgment; Patna High Court wants him to undergo training at judicial academy

A trial court quoting Sanskrit shlokas and gazals of late Jagjit Singh while convicting a person under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) did not go down well with the Patna High Court. .A single judge bench of Justice Birendra Kumar expressed its concern over the quality of judgement and underscored the importance of judges having correct knowledge of legal principles. "Trial Judge has referred to Sanskrit shloka and gajals of Late Jagjit Singh while awarding the sentence against the appellant. A trial Judge especially a Judge having power to award death sentence must have correct knowledge of legal principles and zeal to its proper application while exercising the most onerous responsibility of taking decision on the life and liberty of person before him," the High Court noted. Lack of knowledge of legal principles, the Court said, could lead to miscarriage of justice and unnecessary harassment to the parties to the litigation. "Bias and prejudices, conjectures and surmises and personal views contrary to the material on the record have no place in the court of law," the Court added. .The High Court, therefore, not only set aside the order but also observed that the trial judge needs to undergo special training at Judicial Academy."In my view, this judgment as well as the judgment of the learned trial Judge requires to be forwarded to the Director, Bihar Judicial Academy to ensure proper academic training to the judicial officers to make them conversant with the correct legal proposition.Hon’ble the Chief Justice may deem it proper that the trial Judge who has passed the impugned judgment needs special training at the Judicial Academy. Hence let a copy of this judgment along with trial court judgment be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for needful," the High Court ordered..The Court was hearing an appeal was filed by one Deepak Mahto, who was convicted and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence of attempt to penetrative sexual assault under Section 18 of the POCSO Act. The conviction and sentence was passed by the special judge, POCSO at Bettiah..It was contended by the prosecution that Deepak had entered into the house of the prosecutrix, who was a 13-year-old girl and forcefully established sexual relationship."The informant tried to make alarm, but the appellant pressed on her mouth. Further allegation is that the appellant lifted her and was carrying her to commit her murder, but the family members came and the appellant was apprehended and was handed over to the police," the complaint said..Further, the State contended that a victim is a reliable witness and no corroboration is required."The victim of rape hesitates in disclosing what has happened against her openly at each and every opportunity faced by her and the statement of the prosecutrix as PW-1 would reveal that she has supported her earlier statement given before the police or before the Magistrate. Therefore, she is wholly a reliable witness and corroboration is not the requirement..".The prosecutrix in her statement taken under section 164 of CrPC said that the appellant had not ravished her, rather attempted to commit rape, but he could not succeed.On the other hand, the appellant contended that it was a case of 'no evidence' and the trial judge misunderstood the legal principles and relied upon the statement recorded under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as well as under Section 164 CrPC for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt..After hearing the parties, the High Court said that the trial court had not applied its mind and the legal principles to the case."The judgment reveals that the learned trial Court "has accepted, the statements of the prosecutrix made prior to her examination as a prosecution witness as substantive evidence. As such, the impugned judgment suffers from non-application of correct principle of law while appreciating the evidence during a criminal trial.".In this regard, the Court noted that non-examination of the doctor who had performed the radiological examination would be fatal for the prosecution case as the accused "could not get opportunity to cross-examine them." Further, the Court said that this case had no reliable evidence, because the report submitted the prosecution is not a substantive piece of evidence unless the "expert appears before the Court and supports the medical performance done by them.".Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was set-aside. .[Read Judgment]