Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently set aside a 16-year-old order of conviction under the Scheduled Castes and and Scheduled Tribes (SCST) Act and said a trial judge should not assume the role of a prosecutor or defence lawyer.
A single-judge bench of Justice A.M. Badar was hearing a plea challenging the conviction order passed on January 15, 2001, in which the additional sessions judge in Pune had convicted Usha Tanpure under the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced her to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of ₹500.
The accused had gone to her workplace in a nightgown on a holiday, and the victim, a peon, had questioned her attire. The accused had responded by hurling abuses at him. The trial court had said that the accused had insulted and humiliated the victim in a public place, and the witnesses had deposed that they were fighting. It had said that it had to adopt “strict scrutiny and closest circumspection”.
ADVERTISEMENT
Coming down heavily on the trial judge, the HC said, “It is required to be kept in mind that witnesses are not accustomed to proceedings in the court. They are likely to be overawed by aura of the court. If the trial judge starts assuming the role of the prosecutor, then the parties may begin to think that the judge is not holding the scale of justice quite evenly. It is seen that there are compelling and substantial reasons for interference in the case in hand because of total unreasonable view taken by the trial court in convicting the accused. For these reasons the accused is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt and allowed the appeal by quashing the order of conviction.”