2024 (5) TMI 1489 - SC - Indian Laws

Direction to Trial Court to conduct a de novo trial, while making certain observations against the Special Judge - disapproval of approach in the conduct of the trial - procedural Violations in Conducting the Trial - Imposition of a sentence by way of a legislation - existence of a prima facie case or not - HELD THAT - The High Court, while passing both the impugned judgments, 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 that the decision was rendered in utmost haste. It would be humanly impossible to deliver the judgment within half an hour s time running into 27 pages consisting of 59 paragraphs in the first case and similarly in the other. The lawyer for the defence cannot fight against the court. It is the court which has to follow a balanced approach. 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. It is not possible to say anything on the merits of the case. On facts, even in Criminal Appeal No. 3925 of 2023, the trial had commenced and concluded in a single day. Additionally, no lawyer could be engaged by the accused and, therefore, as per the recommendations of the prosecutor, another one was engaged. Otherwise, the facts are more or less similar in both the cases and, therefore, we are not inclined to go into it in detail. When the charges are very serious, Courts should be more circumspect in discharging their solemn duty. The decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellant have no bearing on the present case. The appellant judicial officer is fortunate that no action was taken against him. Nothing more can be said on this, except by stating that in the absence of any proposed action, there is no question of hearing the appellant. Thus, it is not required to interfere on the merits of the case with respect to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions, as the accused is still under incarceration. On the application filed seeking intervention over the action taken on the administrative side, it is for the appellant to approach the High Court. It is an administrative action taken and, therefore, the same does not require any interference on the judicial side, especially in light of the discussion made above. Suffice it is to state that liberty is given to the appellant to approach the High Court on the administrative side. The trial court shall keep in mind the mandate of POCSO Act, 2012 while recording the evidence of the victim - the trial court shall conduct and complete the trial expeditiously in view of Section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012 - the Government of India represented by the Secretary for the Ministry of Law and Justice shall file an affidavit on the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy and a report thereon, within a period of six months from today. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Procedural Violations in Conducting the Trial
2. Fair Trial and Rights of the Accused
3. Use of Video Conferencing in Judicial Proceedings
4. Witness Protection Scheme
5. Sentencing Policy and Reform
6. Judicial Conduct and Administrative Actions

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Procedural Violations in Conducting the Trial:
The judgment highlights significant procedural violations during the trial process. The trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly Sections 207, 226, 227, and 230. The accused was not provided with adequate time to consult with his lawyer, and the documents were not shown to him before framing charges. The trial was conducted in undue haste, with the judgment being delivered within half an hour after arguments, raising concerns about the fairness of the proceedings.

2. Fair Trial and Rights of the Accused:
The judgment emphasizes that a fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The court noted that the accused was denied due opportunity at every stage of the trial. The accused's right to consult with his lawyer was not honored, and the trial court's approach was criticized for being overly hasty. The principle of "justice hurried is justice buried" was underscored, highlighting the need for a balanced approach in conducting trials.

3. Use of Video Conferencing in Judicial Proceedings:
The judgment discusses the provisions of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020. It was noted that the trial court did not adhere to these rules, particularly concerning the accused's right to consult privately with his counsel. The use of video conferencing should be an exception rather than the norm, especially during critical stages like framing charges and recording statements under Section 313 of the CrPC.

4. Witness Protection Scheme:
The judgment refers to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, which aims to safeguard witnesses from intimidation or coercion. The trial court failed to invoke this scheme, and the recording of witness statements was conducted without ensuring their protection. The judgment stresses the importance of implementing this scheme to ensure a fair trial.

5. Sentencing Policy and Reform:
The judgment calls for a comprehensive sentencing policy, noting the lack of uniformity and consistency in sentencing practices. It suggests the need for a Sentencing Commission to develop guidelines that consider various factors such as age, socio-economic background, and potential for rehabilitation. The judgment also highlights international practices and recommends that the Government of India consider adopting a structured sentencing policy.

6. Judicial Conduct and Administrative Actions:
The judgment addresses the observations made against the trial judge, noting that no action was taken against him despite the procedural lapses. The judgment emphasizes that judicial officers must adhere to procedural norms and ensure fair trials. It also mentions that any administrative actions taken against the judge should be addressed on the administrative side of the High Court.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, with directions for the trial court to conduct the trial expeditiously and in compliance with the POCSO Act, 2012. The judgment also directed the Government of India to consider introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy. The judgment underscores the importance of fair trial principles, procedural compliance, and the need for sentencing reforms.