"Example Of How Not To Write A Judgment": Patna High Court Sets Aside Death Sentence In Dowry Death Case

Of what was observed as the "example of how not to write a judgment", the Patna High Court has set aside the reference order of the trial court for confirmation of death sentence in connection with a dowry death case.

Observing that the Trial Court ought to have avoided the "sweeping and disparaging remarks" made in its judgment regarding the conduct of the accused persons, a division bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh and Justice Arvind Shrivastava observed thus:

"The judgment under consideration is an example of how not to write a judgment. It has repeatedly been emphasized by the Supreme Court that the Courts and Judges must make a dispassionate assessment of evidence and that the Courts and Judges should not be swayed by the horror of crime and the character of the person. The judgment should be made by a Judge uninfluenced by his own imagined norms of the functioning of the society."

Furthermore, it said:

"Reasoning is the mental process through which a Judge reaches to his conclusion. All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly recorded. The finding of fact should be based on legal testimony and should be based on legal grounds. Neither the finding of fact nor the decision should be based upon wild suspicion, hypothetical presumption, surmises and conjectures. Further, while commenting on the conduct of the parties, a Judge is required to be careful to use sober and restrained language. He should avoid use of disparaging and derogatory remarks against any person whose case may be under consideration before him."

The development came while the bench was dealing with a bunch of appeals challenging the order of conviction and sentence dated 26th and 29th March 2019 wherein husband and sister in law of a deceased wife was convicted by the lower Court in a dowry death case.

Hearing the submissions on appeal, the High Court was of the view that the Trial Court should avoid use of disparaging and derogatory remarks against any person whose case may be under consideration before him.

"Indulging in trial and error in arriving at a decision making tends to cloud the cognitive space with the attendant cognitive biases. The clouded mind then tends to fit in the causal chain to the prototypes based on biologi- cally and socially evolved capacities; social pressures, individual motivations and emotions. In making decision a judge is required to avoid the intuitive/reflexive outcome based on the causal chain of events available and focus on deliberative aspect of decision making otherwise the judge would tend to draw illusory correlation between the chain of events and the reflexive outcome." It said.

Furthermore, the Court observed thus:

"The decision making requires a certain level of motivation and cognitive capacity of a judge. A well trained mind of a judge along with self realization of the available biases occupying his cognitive space would help a judge avoid the pit falls of heuristic and avoid distorted thinking leading to a more balanced and rational outcome."

"Surprisingly, in para 43 of the judgment, the Trial Court held that the case under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out. After alteration of charge, since there was no charge under Section 306 of the IPC, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to have recorded such finding in respect of Section 306 of the IPC." The Court said while analysing the facts of the case and the trial court order.

Observing that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the motive beyond doubt that it was a case of homicidal death, the court opined that there was absence of legally admissible evidence and that the trial court has convicted the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC merely on "moral ground" as the wife had died in her matrimonial home.

"In view of the foregoing discussions, I am persuaded to conclude that the impugned judgment and order cannot be legally sustained. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2019 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2019 are, hereby, set aside. The appellants, namely, Nasruddin Mian @ Lalu @ Nasiruddin Ahmad and Salamu Nesha @ Salamun Nesa are directed to release forthwith, if they are not required in any other case." The Court held.

Accordingly, allowing the appeals, the Court set aside the reference made by the trial court under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C.

Title: The State of Bihar Versus Nasruddin Mian

Click Here To Read Judgment