Top court ‘fails’ to decipher Punjab and Haryana HC judge’s verdict

Badly written judgments and orders of a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge continue to haunt the Supreme Court even after his retirement in May this year.

While hearing appeals challenging an October 1, 2024, HC verdict delivered by a Bench led by the same judge, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Friday recalled how the top court judges had a difficult time attempting to comprehend verdicts of the HC judge in question.

“Fortunately, he (HC judge) has demitted office,” the CJI said, adding every verdict of the judge was “overturned” when it was challenged before the Supreme Court.

In February, Justice Gavai had told the appellants’ counsel to wait for the retirement of the judge as the matter could be reassigned to him, if sent back for reconsideration.

By the impugned judgments and orders dated October 1, 2024, and November 5, 2024, the HC reversed the acquittal and convicted appellant(s), including one Raj Kumar, of murder and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life.

On behalf of Haryana, Additional Advocate General Abhinav Bajaj defended the judgments and orders passed by the Division Bench of the high court terming these “well-reasoned” that warranted no interference.

However, senior counsel Siddhartha Dave, representing the appellant(s) and senior advocate Narendra Hooda, appearing for the complainant, submitted that they were not in a position to appreciate the reasoning given in the impugned judgments and orders of the high court.

Part of judgment that baffled SC

“Therefore, unless the said defence(s) are well raised and are also ably proven, thereupon the making of a disclosure statement by the accused and the consequent thereto recovery, but are to be assigned credence. Conspicuously, when the said incriminatory link in the chain of incriminatory evidence rather is also the pivotal corroborative link, thus even in a case based upon eyewitness account.”

Agreeing with Dave and Hooda, the top court set aside the high court’s order and remitted the matter back to the HC for hearing of the appeals afresh.

“We have also carefully perused the impugned judgments and orders. In spite of our strenuous efforts, we could not understand the reasoning given in the impugned judgments and orders. Apart from that it is a settled principle of law that unless the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge is found to be perverse and impossible, interference in an appeal is not warranted,” the CJI-led Bench said, allowing the appeals.

“Be that as it may, from the impugned judgments, it is not clear what weighed with the learned Division Bench of the HC so as to reverse the findings of the learned trial judge. We, therefore, refrain ourselves from making any observations on the merits of the matter,” said the Bench — which also included Justice K Vinod Chandran.