Patna HC sets aside death sentence in dowry death case [READ JUDGMENT]

The Patna HC has set aside the reference order of the trial court which was regarding the confirmation of death sentence in connection to a dowry death case. 

Patna HC states that one must learn how to not write judgements. This particular judgement from the trial court is an example. The HC observed that the trial court should have avoided the sweeping and disparaging remarks made in its judgement with regards to the conduct of the accused people. 

The bench consisted of Justices Ashwani Kumar Singh and Arvind Shrivastava.

The case was regarding the husband and sister-in-law being arrested for the dowry death case by a lower court.

The High Court stated: Indulging in trial and error in arriving at a decision making tends to cloud the cognitive space with the attendant cognitive biases. The clouded mind then tends to fit in the casual chain to prototypes based on biologically and socially evolved capacities; social pressures, individual motivations and emotions. In making decision a judge is required to avoid the intuitive reflexive outcome based on the casual chain of events that followed and focus on deliberative aspect of the decision making otherwise the judge would tend to draw the illusory correlation between the chain of events and the reflexive outcome.

Furthermore, the court observes that the decision making requires a certain amount of motivation and cognitive ability of a judge. A well trained and self-realized judge would avoid the biases by relying on his/her cognitive intuition. It helps a judge avoid distorted thinking leading to a more balanced and rational outcome.

Surprisingly, in the 43rd paragraph, the Trial Court held that the case under section 306 of the IPC is not made out. After alteration of charge, since there was no charge under section 306 of the IPC, there was no occasion for the trial court to have recorded such, the court added while analyzing the trial court order.

The court lastly declared that in the view of the aforementioned facts and conclusion drawn from them, the court cannot sustain the impugned judgement legally. Consequently, the judgement and the order dated 26.03.2019 and order dated 29.03.2019 were set aside.

[READ JUDGMENT]