The Patna high court has recommended special training for a trial judge while setting aside his judgment awarding 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment to an accused in a case of attempted rape. The accused had also been fined.
The single-judge bench of Justice Birendra Kumar observed that evidence brought during trial did not establish any offence by the accused. The court ordered that the trial court judgment and the HC order setting aside the verdict be sent to the Bihar Judicial Academy to ensure proper academic training of judicial officers.
The bench allowed the appeal of Deepak Mahto, who had challenged his conviction by the Pocso court in Bettiah, West Champaran, on June 15, 2019. The HC simultaneously allowed Mahto to be set free at once. The order was passed on Monday evening. The bench observed that the Patna HC chief justice may deem it proper for the trial judge, who passed the judgment, to undergo special training at the academy.
A 13-year-old girl, in an FIR lodged with Inarwa police station in West Champaran on June 17, 2018, had accused Mahto of raping her. However, in her statement recorded before a judicial magistrate under CrPC Section 164, she alleged that Mahto attempted to rape her but did not succeed. Police submitted a chargesheet against the accused for attempted rape. Mahto was sentenced to 10 years' RI and ordered to pay a Rs 2 lakh fine on June 14, 2019. The court ordered him to pay the survivor Rs 1 lakh from the fine amount.
The HC observed that the trial court accepted the conflicting facts in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164, but did not appreciate the lack of any substantive evidence. The HC also pulled up the trial court judge for referring to shlokas and ghazals of the late Jagjit Singh in his judgment.
The bench observed that a trial judge, especially one having the power to award the death sentence, must have correct knowledge of legal principles and their proper application while exercising the responsibility of taking decisions on the life and liberty of a person. "Lack of knowledge of legal principles leads to miscarriage of justice and unnecessary harassment of the parties to the litigation. Bias and prejudices, conjectures and surmises and personal views contrary to the material on record have no place in a court of law," the HC observed.
Senior advocate NK Agrawal, assisted by Vijay Anand, appeared for Mahto, while additional public prosecutor Zeyaul Hoda represented the state government.
During the trial, the victim deposed before the court that she would not be able to recognise the boy (Mahto) if he was brought before her. Contrary to the FIR, in which the girl said her family members had caught the accused, she told the trial court that her family members had not been at home and that the villagers had, in fact, caught Mahto.
The HC observed that the victim did not specify the kind of offence committed against her. It also observed that the girl’s mother, another prosecution witness, stated that she was asleep and the accused had already fled when she woke up.
"The witness (mother) is also not specific about what the girl told her about the incident," the HC observed. The girl’s brother and father’s sister were declared hostile by the prosecution.
The HC observed that the two doctors who had medically examined the girl and performed radiological examinations, respectively, were not produced before the trial court and their reports as exhibits were not substantive evidence unless they supported their findings in court.