Allahabad High Court Highlights Flawed Convictions to Avoid Higher Court Notices
Last Updated on September 21, 2024 by Athi Venkatesh
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court criticized trial courts for convicting accused individuals to avoid notices from higher courts. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, made this observation while reviewing criminal appeals from a 2010 dowry death case judgment by a Sessions Court in Aligarh.
The Bench took issue with a show cause notice issued by a Single Judge in 2010, questioning the trial judge’s acquittal of the accused under charges including Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband), 304-B (dowry death), 201 (disappearance of evidence), and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court had convicted the accused only under Section 506(I) IPC (criminal intimidation), awarding them two years of rigorous imprisonment.
The High Court found that trial judges may convict accused persons out of fear of facing scrutiny from higher courts, leading to unjustified convictions. The Division Bench ultimately acquitted the accused of criminal intimidation as well.
The Court also ruled that the trial judge had not erred in acquitting the accused of dowry death charges, as the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to dowry-related cruelty before her death. The High Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the retired District and Sessions Judge of Aligarh, reassuring him that his decision, apart from the minor conviction under Section 506, was correct.
The Court further noted that trial judges should not be pressured into passing convictions without substantial evidence, and the issuance of notices by higher courts must consider the full facts of the case.
Case Title: Virendra Singh And Others vs. State of UP (2024 LiveLaw (AB) 585).
