Additional District and Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar has given his 23rd death sentence in the last four months and sent a strong message about judicial independence when he pronounced the verdict in a dowry death case on Monday. The fast-track judge said during proceedings that he would rather die than be remembered as a “coward judge” and that fear or pressure from powerful criminal elements won’t stop him from discharging his duties.
The comments were made as the court sentenced a man to death for setting his wife on fire after she refused dowry demands. In his judgment Diwakar said judges should not be “influenced by mafias, gangsters or criminals” in carrying out their duties. He said that “public confidence is heavily placed on judiciary and if fear is allowed to control judicial decisions then public trust will also be affected”.
Judge Says He Will Not Work Under Fear
In his judgment Diwakar referred to the principles taught by his parents — “I have been taught only to fear God and nobody else” he said. A judge should not lose faith in justice when dealing with cases of people who may be in influence or criminal power too.
The judge reportedly said “I would rather die than live with the reputation of being a coward.” He made these comments against a backdrop of claims that he had been threatened by mafias and criminals while carrying out his judicial functions.
Diwakar also alleged that around 100 serious cases were removed from his court to benefit such elements. The allegations add another dimension to the judge’s comments about pressure and functioning of judiciary.
The judge is also learnt to have approached senior officials for protection as his security cover in Muzaffarnagar had been reduced. His concerns about security and transfer of cases have brought out the difficulties judicial officers face while dealing with sensitive criminal matters.
Man Sentenced to Death for Burning Wife
The death sentence was awarded to Nadeem in Monday’s case after he was convicted under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on him, government counsel Kuldeep Kumar said.
On July 23, 2018 Nadeem allegedly set his 23-year-old wife Shehzadi on fire in Shahpur town for dowry demands. She suffered severe burns and was taken to Delhi’s Safdarjung Hospital for treatment.
Shehzadi later died of her injuries but the prosecution said Nadeem was the person who had set her on fire in a statement given before she died. That dying declaration became key evidence in the case.
The prosecution had trouble with the trial because all 11 of its witnesses reportedly turned hostile. But the court used Shehzadi’s dying declaration in reaching its conclusion and convicted Nadeem.
23 Death Sentences in 11 Cases
Monday’s verdict took the number of death sentences given by Diwakar’s court to 23 in 11 cases in about four months, government counsel Kuldeep Kumar said. The unusually high number of capital punishment verdicts has been noticed among legal circles as well as local Bar members.
The developments come soon after nearly 100 murder cases pending before Diwakar were transferred to the court of District and Sessions Judge Virendra Kumar Singh through an administrative order in August.
District Bar Association president Pramod Tyagi had earlier said the transfer was done following “concerns among lawyers and litigants that fast track court may award capital punishment in cases pending before it”.
The transfer of cases and Diwakar’s comments have thus become part of a larger debate about fast-track courts, judicial discretion and serious criminal cases.
Focus on Judicial Responsibility
His comments have brought home once again how hard judicial officers can be on themselves when dealing with serious crimes. That he would rather die than be called a coward says just as much about his stated determination to do what is right, despite threats of retribution.
At the same time, death penalty cases have the highest possible judicial consequence so the evidentiary standard and legal process are particularly important. In the present case the court relied on the dying declaration of the deceased woman even though the prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
The verdict and the judge’s comments are therefore likely to be fodder for legal and public debate. It shows how severe dowry violence is and also how difficult it is for courts to deal with crimes that end in death.
As the legal process leading up to the verdict continues, the judge’s comments have given a personal touch to a case that has already been made news because of the capital punishment handed down and broader questions about why so many cases were transferred from his court.
