Amit Talukdar, J. - (1.) Reticence may be good in many circumstances, but a Judge remaining mute during trial is not an ideal situation. A taciturn Judge may be the model caricatured in public mind. But, there is nothing wrong in his becoming active or dynamic during trial so that criminal justice system being the end could be achieved. Criminal trial should not turn out to, be about or combat between two rival sides with the Judge performing the role only of a spectator or even an umpire to pronounce finally who won the race. A Judge is expected to actively participate in the trial, elicit necessary materials from witnesses in the appropriate context which he feels necessary for reaching the correct conclusion. There is nothing which inhibits his power to put questions to the witnesses, either during chief -examination or cross -examination or even during the re -examination to. elicit truth. The corollary of it is that if a Judge. felt that a witness has committed an error or a slip it is the duty of the Judge to ascertain whether it was so, for. to err is human and the chances of erring may accelerate under stress of nervousness during cross -examination. Criminal justice is not to be founded on erroneous answers spelled -out by witnesses during evidence -collecting process. It is a useful exercise for a trial Judge to remain active and alert so that errors can be minimised." This has been held by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas speaking for the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. S. Anand (as His Lordship then was) and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. T. Thomas in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Ani alias Hanif & Ors., reported in, 1997 SCC 581.' This Court reminds itself of the passage of His Lordship then Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas by way of a silent prayer when it was entrusted to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused in Sessions Trial No. XXXIX (January) 1998 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah on 11 -8 -2000. At the behest of the father of the unfortunate girl, Hena who met with her end in her matrimonial home on 21 -8 -91, two years alter her marriage. This Court is rather pained and at the same time aghast to find as to how the entire Justice Delivery System has operated in the present case.
(2.) Before tracing out the jinxed matrimony of deceased Hena which led to her premature departure from the World of Living, this Court finds that the very sacred concept of justice has been burled in the (sic) of dead technicalities, which perhaps may not have even cut any ice in the mid -Victorian judicial system but today we are reposed with the trust that the Criminal Justice System should be salvaged from the ruins of fallacies and to see that the debris of fallacy and errors do not snap the rive -wire of the very system.
(3.) Here the accused along with his Motha (since deceased) was arrayed in the aforesaid trial & answer the following charge: First -That you in between 7th August 1989 to 20th/21st, August 1991 at Sukanta Abasan, Old Government Housing Estate, 193 Ahdul Road. Police Station -Shlbpur within the District of Howrah did commit torture upon the new bride of your family Hena Roy both mentally and physically and in fact said Smt Hena Roy was subjected to cruelty initiated by you in the matrimonial home and you...and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code, within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions. Secondly -"That you, on or about the 20th/21st day of August, 1991 at the same place persuaded your legally married wife Smt. Hena Roy to bring dowry from her father's family and she was subjected to cruelty for the same and said Smt. Hena Roy could not digest such torture for demanding dowry from your side and she committed suicide by hanging on the same day i.e. 21st August, 1991. Smt. Hena Roy died due to dowry demand coupled with torture and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Sec. 304B of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions.";