A Chhattisgarh trial judge’s unexplained mistake is set to begin afresh the travails of a family charged in a dowry death case 19 years ago and acquitted in 2007 after a nine-year-long legal battle.
The Supreme Court has ordered a retrial of the case, as the trial judge had not written his judgment explaining his order for acquittal.
The grave mistake committed by the trial judge has come back to haunt Ajay Singh, his parents Sureshwar Singh and Dhanwanti Devi, and his sister Kiran Singh, who were all charged for the death of
Ajay’s wife Ruby at her matrimonial house in lakhimpur, district Surguja, on December 1, 1998. Since the marriage was less than two years old, the wife’s family alleged dowry harassment (IPC Section 498A) and dowry death (IPC Section 304B).
The case lingered on in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, for almost a decade. Finally, on October 31, 2007, the judge ordered their acquittal. In the order sheet of the case file, the judge said, “The accused persons are acquitted as per the judgment separately typed, signed and dated”. This judgment never came.
As fate would have it, in another criminal case too, the same judge failed to pass any judgment despite recording the conclusion of trial. A complaint by the State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh against the judge was forwarded to the Chhattisgarh High Court. A Vigilance probe found the judge guilty. He was first suspended and following an in-house enquiry, a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him on March 22, 2011. Simultaneously, the victims who suffered at the hands of the erring judge approached the High Court for relief.
A full court resolution of the Chhattisgarh HC on March 4, 2008 directed the transfer of the trials in question to the court of District and Sessions Judge, Surguja, for fresh hearing and disposal. Aggrieved by this order, the accused, Ajay and his family, approached the Supreme Court.
The apex Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy upheld the HC’s decision. It lauded the High Court for acting diligently to set aside the trial court order that had no effect in law. While an order is a mere declaration of result, it is a judgment which is recognised under law as the decision of the court. It is only when a copy of the judgment is provided to both parties in a criminal trial, it can be said the trial is over, the SC said on Friday.
Assuaging the trauma suffered by the accused, the Bench said, “The accused persons might have felt delighted in acquittal and affected by the order of rehearing, but they should bear in mind that they are not the lone receivers of justice. law serves both the victim and the accused and justice looks at them equally.”