How far should a trial judge be penalised by an appellate court for having delivered a flawed judgment?.A conflict of opinion recently arose on this aspect between the judges of a Madras High Court Division Bench, while reversing a trial court’s death sentence in a case involving the kidnapping and murder of a child..Both Justices S Vimala and S Ramathilagam were in agreement as far as reversing the death sentence awarded by the trial court was concerned. It was found that the trial court had awarded the death sentence even though the guilt of the accused was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt..Given the irrevocable nature of the death sentence, Justice S Vimala was unequivocal in her disapproval for the death sentence that was casually awarded by the trial judge in this case. As noted in her judgment,.“It is not known on what basis, particularly when there is an acute dearth of evidence, the trial court has gone to the extent of awarding death sentence. .There is a vital difference between the death sentence and other sentences, as in case of death sentence, once it is executed, it cannot be reversed. In other words, death sentence once executed, cannot cause resurrection of the wronged life. Therefore, the trial court should have been careful while awarding capital punishment.”.On a general note, Justice Vimala emphasised that there are higher standards of accountability that are fixed on the judiciary. In this light, she was critical of the trial judge’s verdict which appeared to have been prompted by the suffering of the victim alone, even in the absence of legal evidence to implicate the accused..“Judiciary has more accountability than the other two branches, i.e., legislature and executive, because judiciary alone has the power of judicial review over the action of other two… .If at all the trial court has felt the agony of a four year old child having been done to death, when it finds that there is no evidence, either a re-trial or de-novo trial or further investigation ought to have been ordered. Leaving those options, it is not fair and proper for the trial court to have awarded a death sentence in respect of an offence for which there is no evidence.”.Justice Vimala therefore opined that it is apt that the trial judge be directed to explain why adverse remarks concerning the “poor” quality of his judgment should not entered into his service records..“Only in rarest of rare cases, even after establishment of case by the legal evidence, awarding of death penalty is permissible. .This is a case where there is no evidence at all. Still, death penalty handed down in a very casual manner, probably out of an over enthusiasm and zeal to stray into the irrelevant considerations other than those sanctioned by the highest court of the land. .The Capital punishment would evoke an awe and send shock waves only when it is based on truth and evidence and would lose its sanctity and severity when it is perverse and peddled frequently by every trial court for fear of indictment from outside sources. .Therefore, the learned trial Judge is called upon to explain as to why adverse remarks shall not be ordered to be entered into the service records, recording that the quality of judgment is poor.”.Justice Ramathilagam concurred with Justice Vimala’s findings as far as the evident flaws in the trial judge verdict was concerned..“In this case, we are pained to say that the trial Court should have examined and discussed the case in a more detailed manner so that the judgment is not challenged or even if challenged it makes the appellate Court to confirm the same which will save the precious time of this Court.”.She went on to observe that it is the obligation of the appellate Court i.e. the High Court to rectify any flaws found in the trial court judgment..“… we feel it is our duty and responsibility to point out the lapses and mistakes committed by the trial Court before arriving at a conclusion only with the intention of expecting better judgment because it involves lives and not with an intention of ridiculing or criticizing which will affect the self-esteem of the learned trial Judge.”.This duty assumed more significance when the trial verdict involves the award of the death penalty..“As an appellate Court, we have the responsibility and we feel it is our duty to point out that the trial Court should have dealt this case in a better way especially when considering this case as a rarest of rare and also when we exercise our power to award the highest punishment namely capital punishment even though the crime is heinous.”.However, she struck a note of dissent when it came to whether or not the trial judge’s “poor” judgment quality should be entered into his service records. As noted in the separate judgment she authored,.“Commenting on the judgment, giving warning to the learned Sessions Judge and registering adverse remarks in the service register, all this can be done separately by giving a chance to the learned Sessions Court Judge and to explain his stand regarding the judgment given by him..Mentioning all these in a judgment copy becomes a document which may give mental agony to the learned Judge which will affect his future, who is holding the highest post in his district and member of our Forum. .Further, we are giving a chance for the public to comment on the trial Court Judge also. So it need not be a part of the judgment copy.”.Justice Ramathilagam, therefore, took the view that adverse remarks made against the trial judge should be expunged, a practice that she noted was supported by Supreme Court precedent..“We have even reference in which the Supreme Court has directed to expunge the personal remarks, even if a wrong order has been delivered by the trial Court. Hence, the adverse remarks made against the trial Judge in the Judgment has to be expunged.”.The main case has been handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for de-novo investigation. The Court made it clear that if the accused is implicated in the fresh investigation, the authorities would not be barred from taking appropriate criminal action against him..Read the judgement:
How far should a trial judge be penalised by an appellate court for having delivered a flawed judgment?.A conflict of opinion recently arose on this aspect between the judges of a Madras High Court Division Bench, while reversing a trial court’s death sentence in a case involving the kidnapping and murder of a child..Both Justices S Vimala and S Ramathilagam were in agreement as far as reversing the death sentence awarded by the trial court was concerned. It was found that the trial court had awarded the death sentence even though the guilt of the accused was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt..Given the irrevocable nature of the death sentence, Justice S Vimala was unequivocal in her disapproval for the death sentence that was casually awarded by the trial judge in this case. As noted in her judgment,.“It is not known on what basis, particularly when there is an acute dearth of evidence, the trial court has gone to the extent of awarding death sentence. .There is a vital difference between the death sentence and other sentences, as in case of death sentence, once it is executed, it cannot be reversed. In other words, death sentence once executed, cannot cause resurrection of the wronged life. Therefore, the trial court should have been careful while awarding capital punishment.”.On a general note, Justice Vimala emphasised that there are higher standards of accountability that are fixed on the judiciary. In this light, she was critical of the trial judge’s verdict which appeared to have been prompted by the suffering of the victim alone, even in the absence of legal evidence to implicate the accused..“Judiciary has more accountability than the other two branches, i.e., legislature and executive, because judiciary alone has the power of judicial review over the action of other two… .If at all the trial court has felt the agony of a four year old child having been done to death, when it finds that there is no evidence, either a re-trial or de-novo trial or further investigation ought to have been ordered. Leaving those options, it is not fair and proper for the trial court to have awarded a death sentence in respect of an offence for which there is no evidence.”.Justice Vimala therefore opined that it is apt that the trial judge be directed to explain why adverse remarks concerning the “poor” quality of his judgment should not entered into his service records..“Only in rarest of rare cases, even after establishment of case by the legal evidence, awarding of death penalty is permissible. .This is a case where there is no evidence at all. Still, death penalty handed down in a very casual manner, probably out of an over enthusiasm and zeal to stray into the irrelevant considerations other than those sanctioned by the highest court of the land. .The Capital punishment would evoke an awe and send shock waves only when it is based on truth and evidence and would lose its sanctity and severity when it is perverse and peddled frequently by every trial court for fear of indictment from outside sources. .Therefore, the learned trial Judge is called upon to explain as to why adverse remarks shall not be ordered to be entered into the service records, recording that the quality of judgment is poor.”.Justice Ramathilagam concurred with Justice Vimala’s findings as far as the evident flaws in the trial judge verdict was concerned..“In this case, we are pained to say that the trial Court should have examined and discussed the case in a more detailed manner so that the judgment is not challenged or even if challenged it makes the appellate Court to confirm the same which will save the precious time of this Court.”.She went on to observe that it is the obligation of the appellate Court i.e. the High Court to rectify any flaws found in the trial court judgment..“… we feel it is our duty and responsibility to point out the lapses and mistakes committed by the trial Court before arriving at a conclusion only with the intention of expecting better judgment because it involves lives and not with an intention of ridiculing or criticizing which will affect the self-esteem of the learned trial Judge.”.This duty assumed more significance when the trial verdict involves the award of the death penalty..“As an appellate Court, we have the responsibility and we feel it is our duty to point out that the trial Court should have dealt this case in a better way especially when considering this case as a rarest of rare and also when we exercise our power to award the highest punishment namely capital punishment even though the crime is heinous.”.However, she struck a note of dissent when it came to whether or not the trial judge’s “poor” judgment quality should be entered into his service records. As noted in the separate judgment she authored,.“Commenting on the judgment, giving warning to the learned Sessions Judge and registering adverse remarks in the service register, all this can be done separately by giving a chance to the learned Sessions Court Judge and to explain his stand regarding the judgment given by him..Mentioning all these in a judgment copy becomes a document which may give mental agony to the learned Judge which will affect his future, who is holding the highest post in his district and member of our Forum. .Further, we are giving a chance for the public to comment on the trial Court Judge also. So it need not be a part of the judgment copy.”.Justice Ramathilagam, therefore, took the view that adverse remarks made against the trial judge should be expunged, a practice that she noted was supported by Supreme Court precedent..“We have even reference in which the Supreme Court has directed to expunge the personal remarks, even if a wrong order has been delivered by the trial Court. Hence, the adverse remarks made against the trial Judge in the Judgment has to be expunged.”.The main case has been handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for de-novo investigation. The Court made it clear that if the accused is implicated in the fresh investigation, the authorities would not be barred from taking appropriate criminal action against him..Read the judgement:
