Trial judge must pronounce verdict by reading at least

A trial court judge must pronounce a verdict in an open court by reading the whole judgement or the operative part and explain its substance in a language which is understood by the accused or his lawyer, the Supreme Court today said.
"The provisions (under law) clearly spell out that it is imperative on the part of the trial judge to pronounce the judgement in the open court by delivering the whole of the judgement or by reading out the whole of the judgement or by reading out the operative part of the judgement and explaining the substance of the judgement in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader," a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said.

It said, "Non-availability of judgement, needless to say, can never be a judgement because there is no declaration by way of pronouncement in the open court that accused has been convicted or acquitted. A judgment, as has been always understood, is the expression of an opinion after due consideration of the facts which deserve to be determined."
The apex court made the observation on an appeal filed by a man and his parents accused in a dowry death case against the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court which had directed retrial noting that the sessions judge had only provided an order sheet and not delivered a judgement.

While dismissing the appeal of the accused, the bench
observed that the judiciary is the protector of the rule of law and nothing can be allowed to contaminate and corrode the faith of people in the system.

"Performance of judicial duty in the manner prescribed by law is fundamental to the concept of rule of law in a democratic State. It has been quite often said and, rightly so, that the judiciary is the protector and preserver of rule of law...
"Errors are bound to occur but there cannot be deliberate peccability which can never be countenanced. The plinth of justice dispensation system is founded on the faith, trust and confidence of the people and nothing can be allowed to contaminate and corrode the same," it said.

The apex court, while upholding the high court order, also said, "A trial judge should remember that he has immense responsibility as he has a lawful duty to record the evidence in prescribed manner keeping in mind the command postulated in Section 309 (power to postpone or adjourn proceedings) of the CrPC and pronounce the judgement as provided under the code.
"A judge in charge of the trial has to be extremely diligent so that no dent is created in the trial and in its eventual conclusion. Mistakes made or errors committed are to be rectified by the appellate court in exercise of 'error jurisdiction'. That is a different matter," it said.

The bench said the high court has rectified the grave error and acted in furtherance of the cause of justice.
"When a situation like the present one crops up, it causes agony, an unbearable one, to the cause of justice and hits like a lightning in a cloudless sky. It hurts the justice dispensation system and no one, and we mean no one, has any right to do so. The high court by rectifying the grave error has acted in furtherance of the cause of justice.
"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. There are victims of the crime. Law serves both and justice looks at them equally. It does not tolerate that the grievance of the victim should be comatosed in this manner," it said.