Trial judges often convict innocent accused only to avoid action by High Court: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently said that the trial court judges in many cases convict accused who ought to be acquitted, only to avoid action from the High Court in criminal appeals [Virendra Singh And Others v. State Of UP].

A Division Bench of Justices Siddharth and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi made the observation while dealing with criminal appeals arising out of a 2010 judgment of a sessions judge at Aligarh in a dowry death case.

The trial court had acquitted the accused of major charges including dowry death, and convicted them only for criminal intimidation.

While deciding the appeal, the High Court found that a single judge in 2010 had issued a show cause notice to the trial judge for acquitting the accused of charges under Section 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 304-B (dowry death), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender) of Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Agreeing with the decision of the trial court and holding that even the conviction of the accused under Section 506 (criminal intimidation - threat to cause death or grievous hurt) IPC was unwarranted, the Division Bench criticised the single judge for having acted in haste to issue notice to the then sessions judge.

It noted that the single judge had not only issued notice to the sessions judge, but had also directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice without waiting for the judicial officer's reply.

"Such conduct of the High Court is responsible for the fear on the part of the Judicial Officers in the trial court and in many cases where the accused deserves clear acquittal, judgment of conviction and order of sentence is passed only because Presiding Officers want to avoid issuance of notice and action by High Court ordered without properly considering their judgments and orders,” said the Court.

The Court thus directed its office to search for the judicial officer, who may have retired by now, and send a copy of the judgment to him so that he knows that he had not committed any error (except the conviction under Section 506) in deciding the case.

The trial judge had earlier justified his decision to acquit the accused and said that the notice had been issued to him only to harm his reputation and service. The High Court agreed with his reply and said,

"He has not committed any mistake in deciding the case and acquitting the appellants of charges under Sections- 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section ¾ of D.P. Act. We have also reached the same conclusion. Further, we have found that conviction and sentence of appellants U/S 506 Part 1 IPC was also unwarranted and may have been ordered only for protection of trial court from unwanted notice like the one which was issued by learned Single Judge to the District and Sessions Judge.”

The case dates back to 2006, when a woman Kumari Bhumika died within seven years of her marriage to the accused Manoj. 

Though the victim’s in-laws said that she had fallen from the roof of the house, a dowry death case was lodged against them after the victim’s father alleged that they would torture her for dowry.

After the trial court acquitted the accused of major charges, the State approached the High Court. The accused also challenged their conviction under Section 506 IPC.

The High Court agreed with the decision to acquit the accused as it found no evidence to prove that the victim had been subjected to cruelty before her death. 

It observed that a court cannot simply pass an order of conviction and sentence if a woman’s death takes place in abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage.  

On the cause of death, the Court said,

“The medical evidence clearly proves that the deceased suffered vital head injury no. 1 because of accidentally falling from the height of about 22 feets while she was talking on phone”.

Advocate Rajrshi Gupta represented the accused.

Advocate Divya Ojha represented the State. Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra appeared for the High Court.

[Read Judgment]