The Meghalaya High Court has strongly pulled up the Judge of District Council Court, Shillong for lacking basic sense of justice and for being “completely bereft of domain knowledge on the subject”.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh made the observation while passing an order setting aside the conviction of Bremingstar Mylliem who was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment for triple murder. Mylliem was suffering from mental disorder and is being treated at MIMHANS, Shillong.
While ordering the release of Mylliem and his proper treatment at a government hospital, the High Court said that the District Council Court, Shillong conducting the trial completely overlooked or deliberately ignored the medical status report of March 7, 2012 issued by the Senior Medical and Health Officer, Psychiatrist, MIMHANS about the mental condition of Mylliem.
“Merely because the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution does not require the letter of the Code to be adhered to does not imply that common sense and all fundamental canons of justice have to be thrown to the wind by the District Council Court, surprisingly authorised to deal with such a serious matter when it is obvious that the Judge concerned lacks basic sense of justice and is completely bereft of domain knowledge on the subject,” the High Court said.
“The State would do well to consider the quality and ability of judges manning District Council Courts before conferring authority on them to deal with serious matters,” the High Court added.
The High Court also directed that a copy of this judgment should be sent to the Law Secretary of the State government for future steps to be taken cautiously before conferring authority on District Council Courts or judges ill-equipped to administer justice in accordance with the basic tenets of law.
While sending back the case to the trial court (District Council Court, Shillong) to be dealt with in accordance with law, particularly keeping in mind the requirements of Section 329 of the Code, the High Court said the trial court should not resume the trial in accordance with Section 331 of the Code or the spirit thereof, till such time an expert opinion is rendered in accordance with law as to the appellant herein being fit to stand trial.
“In any event, even if the appellant is found fit to stand trial and repeats the confession or admission made earlier, the trial court must look into the evidence and use the confession as another piece of evidence and not the sole material to convict the appellant. Further, the trial court must be mindful of the statutory mandate as to sentencing and not arbitrarily invent a form of punishment for a particular offence which is unknown to law,” the High Court said.
