KOCHI: The Kerala high court's judgment confirming the death penalty for Govindachamy not only frowned upon the scandalous questions put across by the accused's counsel Biju Antony Aloor to witnesses, but also laid down the procedure to be adopted by courts when such incidents occur. The judgment authored by justice B Kemal Pasha relied on section 150 of Indian Evidence Act of 1872 to point out that there is in fact a procedure to be adopted by courts when lawyers are asking indecent, scandalous, and unwanted questions to victims and witnesses of a crime.
According to section 150, if the trial court is of the opinion that a question was asked without reasonable grounds, it can report the circumstances of the case to the high court or to other authority to which the lawyer is subject to in exercise of his profession.1
In this case, the high court not only clarified on the procedure that Thrissur fast track court could have adopted but also directed the registry of the court to send a copy of the judgment to Bar Council of Kerala and Bar Council of India for appropriate action.
Bar Council of Kerala's chairman C Sreedharan Nair told TOI that it has the power to censure the lawyer, suspend his enrolment, or remove him from the rolls if a glaring misconduct is found. "Those who engage in the profession of a lawyer are expected to be the gentlemen among men," Nair said.
First, the chairman of the bar council has to conduct a preliminary inquiry. If any misconduct is found, the bar council can register a suo motu case, conduct an enquiry, and then take action, the chairman explained. "In the case of Aloor, as the high court has referred the matter to the bar council, a suo motu case will be registered soon, without waiting for a preliminary enquiry," he said.
"If inquiries involving any scandalous matters are made with a purpose of shaking the credit of a witness, the court has complete dominion over the lawyers and may forbid such questions. But the court may have no discretion to forbid such questions if they relate to the facts in issue or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether the facts in issue existed or not," the high court said citing an early decision of Patna high court in Mohammedd Mian vs Emperor case of 1919.1
No comments:
Post a Comment