Trial judge faces high court flak for poor knowledge

NEW DELHI - The Delhi High Court Thursday slammed a trial court judge for lacking elementary knowledge of law and directed him to hear arguments afresh in a murder case.

A division bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Suresh Kait directed the trial court judge to hear arguments expeditiously and complete the hearing of the arguments by May 28.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Moinuddin who is accused of killing a man in 2006. According to the prosecution, the accused loved the victim’s wife Rubina.

“The trial judge has not crystallized the incriminating circumstances held established by him (judge) against the accused,” the court said while setting aside the order of trial court.

“The impugned decision is penned in a most unsatisfactory manner and only after putting in some labour, it could be gathered that the trial judge has returned the verdict of guilt on the finding that the appellant got infatuated with the wife of the deceased.”

The infatuation was proved through the letter held proved (by the trial judge) to be written by the accused to Rubina, the wife of the deceased through the testimony of Rubina and the report of a handwriting expert, the high court said.

The high court also pulled up the trial court for not considering as evidence a visitor register of the colony where Rubina and her husband stayed at the time of the murder.

The high court said: “We are pained to note that neither the said register nor the relevant extract thereof have been taken on judicial record. The photocopies have also not been taken on the judicial record.”

“This is not the way to record evidence and note the memorandum thereof, much less deal with the same,” the court said.

“It is elementary knowledge, and we expect that a judicial officer of the rank of an additional sessions judge knows that where an extract from a register is exhibited, the same has to be photocopied and taken on the judicial record with a clear order recorded to said effect that the original has been seen and returned,” the court said.

Sending the case again to the trial court, the bench said: “It is hoped and expected that as required by law, after discussing the evidence and the submissions, the trial judge would clearly indicate what has been found as incriminating evidence against the accused and state the reasons with clarity.”