The Allahabad High Court observed that trial judges sometimes convict innocent individuals out of fear of facing action from higher courts. The court instructed its office to locate the judicial officer involved and provide him with a copy of its judgment, affirming that he had not made any errors in his decision. This move aims to reassure trial judges about their judicial independence.
The Allahabad High Court observed that trial court judges often convict accused individuals who should be acquitted, merely to avoid potential action from the High Court during criminal appeals.
This observation made by a Division Bench of Justices Siddharth and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi while hearing criminal appeals related to a 2010 judgment from an Aligarh sessions court in a dowry death case.
In the original case, the trial court acquitted the accused of major charges, including dowry death, and only convicted them for criminal intimidation. While reviewing the appeal, the High Court noted that in 2010, a single judge had issued a show-cause notice to the trial judge for acquitting the accused of charges under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 304-B (dowry death), 201 (disappearance of evidence), and relevant provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the trial court’s decision in a dowry death case, agreeing that the conviction of the accused under Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code was unwarranted. A Division Bench, comprising Justices Siddharth and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, criticized a 2010 decision by a single judge who had hastily issued a show-cause notice to the sessions judge for acquitting the accused on more serious charges.
The trial court had acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 304-B (dowry death), 201 (disappearance of evidence), and the Dowry Prohibition Act, convicting them only for criminal intimidation. The High Court noted that the single judge not only issued notice to the trial judge but also escalated the matter to the Chief Justice without awaiting the trial judge’s response.
The Division Bench remarked,
“Such conduct of the High Court creates fear among Judicial Officers in the trial courts, leading them to pass convictions and sentences in cases where the accused deserve clear acquittal, merely to avoid notices and actions from the High Court without proper consideration of their judgments.”
The High Court directed its office to locate the trial judge, possibly retired, and send him a copy of the judgment, affirming that he had made no error in acquitting the accused, except for the conviction under Section 506. The trial judge had previously defended his decision, stating that the notice issued to tarnish his reputation.
The High Court agreed, stating,
“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 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. We have also reached the same conclusion. Further, we found that the conviction and sentence under Section 506 IPC was unwarranted and may have been imposed only to protect the trial court from unwanted notice like the one issued by the Single Judge.”
The case pertains to the 2006 death of Kumari Bhumika, who passed away within seven years of her marriage to the accused, Manoj.
In the case of Kumari Bhumika’s death, her in-laws claimed she had accidentally fallen from the roof of their house. However, a dowry death case was filed against them after her father alleged that she had been subjected to dowry-related torture.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court Reserves Judgment in High-Profile Gyanvapi Mosque Case
After the trial court acquitted the accused of the major charges, the State appealed the decision to the High Court. The accused also contested their conviction under Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no evidence to prove that the victim had been subjected to cruelty prior to her death. It emphasized that a conviction cannot be issued solely because a woman’s death occurs under unusual circumstances within seven years of marriage. The court noted, “The medical evidence clearly proves that the deceased suffered vital head injury no. 1 because of accidentally falling from a height of about 22 feet while she was talking on the phone.”
Advocate Rajrshi Gupta represented the accused, Advocate Divya Ojha appeared for the State, and Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra represented the High Court.