Dimapur, July 13 (MExN): The ADC (J) of Zunheboto K Chophi today issued a statement in reaction to the sharp criticism made by the Guwahati High Court against his verdict in the year 1999 killing of two students by bodyguards of the then Nagaland Minister for Roads & Bridges I Imkong.
The ADC (J) of the then Dimapur magistrate had acquitted the accused police personnel from the charge of killing Atina Suokrie, Michael Mary and crippling Pangertemsu Ao. The acquittal verdict had caught the attention of the Guwahati High Court, which promptly castigated the ADC (J) for demonstrating ‘complete lack of knowledge of fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.’ (Refer The Morung Express, July 9, 2007).
K Chophi justified the verdict passed. He stated that the court, after taking cognizance of the “offense,” framed the charge against the five accused bodyguards under section 302/307/326/34 IPC, recorded statement of 19 prosecution witnesses and cross-examined the accused. “All the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. PC and framed 78 questions and answers (and) as such (there is) no question of (betraying) the criminal procedure” ADC (J) Chophi stated.
To Guwahati High Court’s criticism, Chophi termed as ‘vindictive and inconsistent’ Justice IA Ansari’s observations saying the trial court had demonstrated complete lack of knowledge of procedure and has betrayed the knowledge of fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence.
The ADC (J) pointed out that the Supreme Court has issued directions to appellate courts to exercise restraint from making disparaging remarks against lower courts. The Supreme Court also observed that ‘our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the judges and hence provides for appeals and revisions to correct errors,’ ADC Chophi stated. The statement mentioned that it is not proper for appellate courts while dealing with appeals and revisions to make derogatory and disparaging remarks using intemperate language against lower courts.
Further, Chophi stated that the appellate courts have ample power under section 386 Cr PC to set aside or reverse the order of the trial court, and direct further enquiry to be made or that the accused be retried or committed for trial or find him guilty and pass sentence on him. “In the instant (sic) case the appellate court observed that they neither could interfere (in) the order of acquittal or convict the person which is contrary to Se. 386 Cr PC, the power of the appellate court” Chophi stated. He lamented that the disparaging remark so made against subordinate courts in criminal appeal no. 1 (K) of 2003 shall be treated or considered as annulled or abated by the order of the Supreme Court and will not take account by any authority being negative observations, inviting “hatred” and public criticism, Chophi explained.
The task of appellate judges compared to the duties of conducting trial procedure “is not difficult” Chophi stated asserting that trial judges should be treated with dignity and honor. “The practice of summoning the trial judges by the High Courts to demolish them in open court is nothing (but) humiliating them” Chophi asserted and expressed hoped that such practices would be discontinued to maintain harmony in the judicial fraternity and promoting public confidence in the administration of justice.
.jpg)
