DIPAK MISRA,J. - (1.) 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. Effective functioning of the said sacrosanct duty has been entrusted to the judiciary and that entrustment expects the courts to conduct the judicial proceeding with dignity, objectivity and rationality and finally determine the same in accordance with 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. A litigant who comes to a court of law expects that inherent and essential principles of adjudication like adherence to doctrine of audi alteram partem,rules pertaining to fundamental adjective and seminal substantive law shall be followed and ultimately there shall be a reasoned verdict. When the accused faces a charge in a court of law, he expects a fair trial. The victim whose grievance and agony have given rise to the trial also expects that justice should be done in accordance with law. Thus, a fair trial leading to a judgment is necessitous in law and that is the assurance that is thought of on both sides. The exponent on behalf of the accused cannot be permitted to command the trial as desired by his philosophy of trial on the plea of fair trial and similarly, the proponent on behalf of the victim should not always be allowed to ventilate the grievance that his cause has not been fairly dealt with in the name of fair trial. Therefore, the concept of expediency and fair trial is quite applicable to the accused as well as to the victim. The result of such trial is to end in a judgment as required to be pronounced in accordance with law. And, that is how the stability of the creditability in the institution is maintained.
(2.) The above prefatory note has relevance, a significant one, to the case at hand. To appreciate the controversy, certain facts are requisite to be noted. The marriage between the appellant No. 1 and Ruby Singh, the deceased, was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 22.06.1997. She committed suicide at her matrimonial home on 01.12.1998. Kameshwar Pratap lodged FIR No. 194/98 at Police Station Lakhanpur, Distt. Sarguja against Ajay Singh (husband), Sureshwar Singh (father-in-law), Dhanwanti Devi (mother-in-law) and Kiran Singh (sister-in-law) for offences punishable under Section 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other offences. After the criminal law was set in motion, investigating agency after commencement of investigation and after completion thereof laid charge sheet under Sections 304B, 498A/34, 328 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused persons before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, who, in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Session and eventually the matter was tried by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. We are, in the present case, not concerned with how many witnesses were examined by the trial court or how the trial continued. What needs to be stated is that the learned trial Judge passed an order in the order sheet that recorded that the accused persons had been acquitted as per the judgment separately typed, signed and dated.
(3.) A member of the State Bar Council sent a complaint to the Registry of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur alleging that learned trial judge had acquitted the accused persons but no judgment had been rendered. The Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court issued a memorandum to the District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur on 18.02.2008 to inquire into the matter and submit a report. The concerned District and Sessions Judge submitted the report to the High Court on the same date stating that no judgments were found in the records of such cases. It has also been brought to the notice of the High Court that in sessions trials being Sessions Trial No. 148 of 1999 and Sessions Trial No. 71 of 1995 though the same trial judge had purportedly delivered the judgments but they were not available on record as the judgments had not actually been dictated, dated or signed. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Full Court of the High Court on 04.03.2008 on which date a resolution was passed placing the concerned trial judge under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. At the same time, the Full Court took the decision to transfer the cases in question from the concerned trial judge to the file of District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur for rehearing and disposal. It is worthy to note here that the concerned officer was put under suspension and after completion of inquiry was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement on 22.03.2011. We make it clear that we are not concerned with the said punishment in the case.;