SC Dismisses Trial Judge's Appeal Against Patna HC's Observation Against Him For Conducting Hasty Trial & Delivering Judgment In A POCSO Case In 'Humanly Impossible' Short Period

The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court's observations on a Trial Judge acting in the utmost haste by delivering a judgment in a 'humanly impossible' short period.

In that context, the Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice SVN Bhatti observed that, "we find that the High Court... has not only called for the records and rendered findings of fact, but has also considered them in detail. At every stage, the accused was denied due opportunity to defend himself. The appellant judicial officer was obviously acting in utmost haste. Every trial is a journey towards the truth and a Presiding Officer is expected to create a balanced atmosphere in the mind of the prosecution and the defence. It seems to us that the decision was rendered in utmost haste."

Senior Counsel Vikas Singh appeared for the appellant, and Senior Counsel CU Singh appeared for the respondents.

In this case, two criminal appeals were filed by a Special Judge who had conducted the trial and subsequently delivered a judgment. He was aggrieved by the remarks made by the High Court in an order of remittal.

The High Court's order had requested the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court to consider whether the Judicial Officer should continue to be assigned the function of holding sessions trials, given their far-reaching consequences, and suggested sending him for fresh training at the State Judicial Academy.

The High Court had observed that merely 40 minutes after the completion of arguments, the Trial Court dictated and pronounced the judgment of conviction in a case relating to a capital offence. It was noted that it was humanly impossible to dictate and pronounce such a voluminous judgment within 40 minutes after hearing the arguments, raising doubts about whether the judgment was pre-prepared and if the hearing was a mere formality.

The Apex Court observed that, "At every stage, including framing of charges, there was a constant denial of due opportunity and hearing. The accused was not able to consult his lawyer. He was not even served with the copies, though his lawyer received the same before framing of the charges. Receiving of documents by his lawyer would not be sufficient compliance, unless there was sufficient time given for him to peruse them and thereafter have a consultation. Admittedly, neither the provisions of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 have been invoked nor the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 were followed. The accused was merely shown the court’s proceedings and the writing was on the wall for him."

The Court also added that the appellant judicial officer was fortunate that no action was taken against him. Accordingly, his appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: Sunita Devi vs The State of Bihar & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment