Trial Courts Are Fearful Of Wrath Of Higher Courts; Often Pass Conviction Judgments Only To Save Their Reputation & Career Prospects: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court remarked that the Trial Courts are fearful of wrath of the higher courts and often pass judgment and order of conviction only to save their personal reputation and career prospects.
The Court remarked thus in a criminal appeal preferred against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge III, Jalaun by which the accused was convicted for the alleged murder.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed, “Considerable amount of public money, time and efforts of number of persons are consumed in preparation and submission of reports by Law Commissions. The government rarely accepts recommendations of Law Commissions. The data on record shows that only about 1/3rd of such reports have been only accepted by the Government. The 277th Report of Law Commission ought to have been accepted by the Government since the trial courts often convict accused in case of heinous offences due to fear of higher courts even in is clear cases of acquittal. They are fearful of wrath of the higher courts in such cases and only to save their personal reputation and carrier prospects such judgment and order of conviction are passed.”
The Bench said that a false accusation and the trauma that follows are imponderable events for any law court to compensate in terms of money.
Advocate Amar Singh Kashyap appeared for the appellant/accused while AGA Manju Thakur appeared for the respondent/State.
In this case, as per the prosecution, two years ago, deceased was married to the appellant/accused but the accused and his family were not satisfied with the dowry received. After marriage, they were demanding one motorcycle, a gold chain, and Rs. 1 lakh and sent the deceased back to her parental home. After the deceased informed the informant (father) about the conduct of the aforesaid persons, he went to their house and stated that he lacks money to fulfil their demand and after leaving his daughter with them, he came back. They made many phone calls demanding dowry and thereafter, the aforesaid persons allegedly killed his daughter, information whereof was received by the informant.
The informant reached the spot and then lodged the FIR against the accused persons. Resultantly, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the period of five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He was further convicted under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default the payment of such fine, for an additional imprisonment of two months. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “Private Law Remedy for the tort of malicious prosecution is not an effective remedy for victims for the inherent improbability in its successful finale. Given the tardy pace of civil litigation and the expenses like court fees and other litigation costs involved, private law remedy sounds not meaningful and user friendly for the victims.”
The Court added that the Police Officers knowingly framing a person disregarding any direction of law, (Section 166 IPC) knowingly disobeying any direction of law regarding investigation [Section 166A(b) IPC], framing or preparing documents to cause injury to any person (Section 167 IPC) invite criminal liability under IPC.
“Any possible act contributing to a wrongful prosecution can be dealt with on the criminal side for securing the conviction of erring state officials and private complainants launching malicious prosecutions as well. This enumeration of culpable conducts in Chapter IX and XI of IPC can be a handy indicia for constitutional courts and other civil courts to decide as to how a wrongful prosecution happens particularly in the context of deviation from the direction of laws relating to investigation, enquiry and trial”, it further noted.
The Court enunciated that, instead of creation of special courts to deal with claim for compensation as mooted by the Law Commission, pragmatism and convenience demand that the task may be done by the court acquitting the accused, be it trial, appellate or revisional court.
“Like the provision for compensation to victims of crime (Sections 357 and 357 A Code of Criminal Procedure/ or corresponding section 395 B.N.S.S. and 396 B.N.S.S), an empowering clause can be conferred on the court acquitting the accused, to decide on claims for compensation in a summary and speedy manner”, it also said.
The Court observed that a virtual death occurs to the personhood of the individual arraigned in the process making it impossible for him to come back to ordinary life with order of acquittal and the lost years of free life cannot be given back to or re-enacted to please him.
“He and his family suffer for the cause of administration of criminal justice. Cash for casualty has little role to purge the sovereign of this unpardonable sin. … In such cases innocent individuals are subjected to trauma of unwanted incarceration in jail for number of years before their bail applications are allowed or their criminal appeals are decided by the High Court/Supreme Court. If ultimately they are acquitted, they find themselves unfit in their family and society, their place in the family gets filled by other members of the family, property is usurped by the other family members and they are seldom seen as a welcome member in the family after being in long incarceration in jail”, it added.
Moreover, the Court emphasised that the State can provide some pecuniary compensation to such accused which may provide them some solace and they would not be seen as a burden on their family after being acquitted of the unfounded charges levelled against them. It said that the family of such persons also goes through the time and money consuming process of contesting trial, which is so tedious that it itself is not less than a major punishment and sometimes the family loses all its means of survival in defending its near and dear one in courts at different level.
“As yet the government has not implemented the recommendations of 277th report of Law Commission hence violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for wrongly prosecuted and punished would continue unabated. Even in the much hyped Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 there is nothing in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for such unfortunate ones”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the accused.
Cause Title- Upendra @ Balveer v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:172173-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Amar Singh Kashyap, Ajay Sengar, and S.P. Lal.
Respondent: AGA Manju Thakur
