The Supreme Court, in an exceptional case has made such exceptional remarks. What is unique of about judgment is recorded in beginning of the judgement itself. It reads;
“This is an exceptional case where this Court has taken serious note, the way the Sessions Judge disposed of the Sessions case within a period of nine days, which can be briefly narrated herein-below:
29.12.2004: Charges were framed and the case was adjourned to 1.1.2005.
1.1.2005: Prosecution produced list of 12 witnesses7.1.2005: The prosecution produced 5 witnesses,who were examined, and remaining dropped. On the same day, accusedwere examined under Section 313,Cr.P.C., arguments heard and judgmentwas delivered acquitting all the accused.
All accused were acquitted, except the main accused(husband), who was convicted under section 498A, IPC to theperiod already undergone since he remained in jail for three days “ .
Fortunately, the High Court reversed the finding on appeal by the State. Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the State and held appellants guilty and convicted them of the charges under Section 306 read with Section 114, IPC and also convicted accused no.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC. The HighCourt, allowing suomotu revision application,enhanced the imprisonment of accused no.1(husband) to RI of seven years. The case reached Supreme Court in view of the Appeal by the accused against their conviction.
The judgement of the Supreme Court is authored by Justice M.Y. Eqbal, with Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre. According to the Court “The courts are expected to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which the courts are sacredly entrusted with the dignity and authority and an alert judge actively participating in court proceedings with a firm grip on oarsenables the trial smoothly to reach at truth. In the presentcase, the trial court has failed to perform its duties to reachto the real truth and to convict the accused. As observed bythe High Court, we are also at pain to notice that the role ofprosecuting agency during the trial along with the trial judgeappears to be dubious. Besides dying declaration, there wasavailable evidence on record to prove the factum of crueltyand death of Renukaben, but it was not brought on record bythe prosecuting agency. Instead, all concerned were inhurry to finish the case in a day”
It is unfortunate that, while we are longing for speedy justice, it is accelerated for few on obvious extraneous reasons. Though the injustice is timely corrected, the scar left by ‘unbecoming’ judges on the judiciary is deep.