The High Court rejected a reference by the trial court for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the accused-husband while acquitting him and other accused.

The High Court recently set aside a judgment of a trial court which had awarded death sentence to an accused in a dowry death case.

The High Court found that the evidence on record did not show any proof that the deceased was ever subjected to cruelty on grounds of dowry.

The Court also took exception to the sweeping observations made by the trial court against the accused, stating that the trial court judgment was a good example of how not to write judgments.

“The judgment under consideration is an example of how not to write a judgment. It has repeatedly been emphasized by the Supreme Court that the Courts and Judges must make a dispassionate assessment of evidence and that the Courts and Judges should not be swayed by the horror of crime and the character of the person," the High Court said.

A judge, while discharging judicial duties, should not be influenced by his own imagined norms of the functioning of the society, the Court added.

"The Trial Court ought to have avoided the sweeping and disparaging remarks made in para 42 of its judgment regarding the conduct of the appellants,” the High Court said.

In the present case, there was no direct evidence against the accused-appellant for the murder of the deceased and the conviction was based purely on circumstantial evidence which did not point towards commission of the crime alleged, the Court said.

The case against the accused was for killing his wife because of non-fulfillment of dowry demands.

FIR was registered by the father of the deceased who alleged that the appellant and his family subjected the deceased to cruelty. He claimed that she was killed by administration of poison in her food because of non-fulfilment of dowry demands and she was buried without informing him or his family.

The Sessions Judge, Gopalgunj convicted the husband and other appellants for the offences of cruelty, causing dowry death, murder and causing disappearance of evidence (Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.)

The accused-husband was sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302, and the same was referred to the High Court for confirmation.

The counsel for the appellants submitted that, “when two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.”

After analysing the trial court judgement at length and considering the rival arguments and the submissions of Amicus Curiae, the Court made observations on basic rules to be followed by a judge while writing a judgement.

The supreme requirement of a judgment is reason, which is the rational to the conclusion, the Court said.

"Reasoning is the mental process through which a Judge reaches to his conclusion. All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly recorded. The finding of fact should be based on legal testimony and should be based on legal grounds. Neither the finding of fact nor the decision should be based upon wild suspicion, hypothetical presumption, surmises and conjectures," the Court said.

Further, while commenting on the conduct of the parties, a judge is required to be careful to use sober and restrained language, the Court opined.

"He should avoid use of disparaging and derogatory remarks against any person whose case may be under consideration before him,” the judgment said.

Further, a court while writing judgment should be dispassionate in assessing the evidence, the Court said.

In the present case, the Court found that there was a complete lack of direct evidence against the appellants for the murder of the deceased, and the conviction was based purely on circumstantial evidence.

“Undoubtedly, the conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be tested on the touchstone of the law relating to proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

In the instant case, the Court said that there was no such evidence against the appellants.

"On the contrary, the evidence is that when the deceased was found unwell, she was taken to Sadar Hospital, Gopalganj for treatment. She was administered fluid and was provided treatment at Sadar Hospital. When her condition deteriorated, while she was being taken to Gorakhpur in a vehicle for better treatment, she died," the Court said.

Further, the evidence on record made it clear that the body of the deceased was not disposed of hurriedly as alleged.

"It was brought back to the matrimonial home of the deceased and the burial took place as per Muslim rites in the Qabristan. There is also evidence that the family members of the deceased were present at the time of burial. They had no suspicion at that time of commission of any offence," the Court noted.

The Court, therefore, set aside the trial court judgment and allowed the appeal.