New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that trial courts were expected to perform their duties of dispensing justice effectively and in line with the spirit of the authority they wield, unearth the truth when the conduct of prosecution is suspect or appears to be hand in glove with the accused.
“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...” said a bench of Justice M Y Eqbal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre in their judgement pronounced on Friday.
Speaking for the bench, Justice Eqbal said: “Court has a greater duty and responsibility ie to render justice, in a case where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue and is said to be hand in glove with the accused, parading a mock fight and making a mockery of the criminal justice administration itself.”
The court’s observation came as it dismissed appeals by Maheshbhai Ranchodbhai Patel and his parents against their conviction for the death of his wife Renukaben Maheshbhai Patel in Gujarat’s Mehsana district. They were convicted by the high court, which reversed the session court’s acquittals, for inflicting harassment and cruelty including physical assault leading to her committing suicide on Dec 16, 1997.
The sessions court had, in just a nine-day trial, acquitted both the in-laws. Though the husband was convicted, he was let off with the three days sentence that he had already undergone. The apex court said that the trial court has failed to perform its duties to reach to the real truth and to convict the accused.
“Besides the dying declaration, there was available evidence on record to prove the factum of cruelty and death of Renukaben, but it was not brought on record by the prosecuting agency. Instead, all concerned were in hurry to finish the case in a day,” the court said in its judgment.
Out of the prosecution’s list of 17 documents to be produced and exhibited, the trial judge exhibited only four but the prosecution did not raise any objection, the court noted.
Referring to an earlier apex court judgment in a 2002 Gujarat riot case, the court said: “The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and courts could not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness.”
IANs
