[Judge Uttam Anand Murder] Incident shook judicial fraternity and people at a mass level: Jharkhand Court

While sentencing two accused to life imprisonment, Jharkhand Court recently observed that last year's murder of Dhanbad Additional District and Sessions judge Uttam Anand shook the entire judicial fraternity [Union of India through CBI v. Lakhan Kumar Verma]..Special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Judge, Dhanbad Rajni Kant Pathak held that in this context, a lenient view of the case could not be taken."This incident shook not only the entire judicial fraternity of the country but on the citizen at mass level," observed the judge..The judgment went on to note that such an incident created an atmosphere of fear among the family members of judicial officers as well as the people of the country."The general people was compelled to think, if this happens to a judge, so what would happen to ordinary citizen and as such the convicts should be punished severely," it was explained..Further, the judge said that if the two accused were released, it would send the wrong massage to society, especially those who witnessed the incident. "Also, they might commit the same offence again having no respect and regard for human life and law of the land.".Judge Uttam Anand was out on a morning walk on July 28 last year, when he was deliberately knocked down by an auto-rickshaw. He suffered severe injuries and later died during the course of treatment.The District And Additional Sessions Judge had, on August 6, convicted Lakhan Kumar Verma and Rahul Kumar Verma for offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..During the course of the the hearing, the CBI submitted that though Lakhan substantially admitted to the whole case of prosecution and its evidence, he had taken the plea of intoxication, stating that he accidentally hit the judge. In this regard, the counsel submitted that there was no alcohol or psychotropic substances found in the blood and urine samples of the accused persons.The first accused also admitted that the second accused Rahul was with him in the front of the vehicle at the time of the incident . Further, Rahul also admitted to the evidence led by the prosecution regarding his association with Lakhan. However, he denied being present with Lakhan at the time of the incident..The defence counsel argued that though a case for murder and disappearance of evidence had been registered, the case did not stand on firm-footing in light of the logical and legal aspects, as it lacked the vital elements of murder.The prosecution has left a void in its investigation and failed miserably to prove this case beyond reasonable doubt, he argued.Therefore, it was stated that this merely a case of an accident and attracted the offence of causing death by negligence and rash driving under the IPC..Judge Pathak rejected the argument aiming to establish the incident as an accident, reasoning that if that were the case, the accused should have stopped their auto and brought the injured to the hospital. "If it was done, perhaps today Judge Uttam Anand (since deceased) would be alive," said the Court. Instead of this, the two fled with a view to destroy the evidence and shield themselves from legal punishment, the Court pointed out.Additionally, the Court noted that the CCTV footage of the incident showed that they left the scene in a fully controlled manner ,which showed their intention. Therefore, the charges were held to be proven by the prosecution. .On the point of sentence, the Court noted that there were only two possible punishments for murder – one, imprisonment for life and the other, capital punishment. Stating that the present case did not come under the purview of rarest of rare, the Court awarded life imprisonment to the accused. However, opining that the culprits ought to be kept behind bars till the end of their lives, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life without any remission and commutation till their last breath."In the instant case the life imprisonment is adequate for offence u/s 302/34 of the IPC. But in my opinion if convicts are awarded life imprisonment, he may be released from custody after 14 years or so, accordingly Jail Manual. But to the mind of this court such culprit needs to be kept behind bar till the end of his life.".The judge further directed that half the amount recovered from the fines imposed were to be paid to the Judge Anand's family members as compensation.Moreover, finding that the fine amount was not adequate, the Court opined that the judge's family was to be compensated adequately under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code and (victim compensation scheme) of CrPC and the Victim Compensation Scheme as the deceased was a sitting judge working under the Jharkhand government..The prosecution was represented by Advocate Amit Jindal while the defence was represented by Advocate Kumar Bimlendu..[Read Judgment]