Allahabad High Court: Present System Of Writing Judgments By Trial Courts Can’t Be Construed To Write Partially In English & Partially In Hindi

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the Presiding Officers of the Trial Courts are at liberty to write their Judgments either in Hindi or in English, but the present system of writing Judgments cannot be construed to write a Judgment partially in English and partially in Hindi.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal preferred against the acquittal of a man for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act).

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Ajay Kumar-II observed, “As per Rule-7 of General Rules Criminal Hindi written in Devnagari script is the language of all criminal courts subordinate to High Court. The circular G.L. No. 8/X-e-5, dated 11th August, 1951 and C.E. No. 125/X-e-5, dated 2nd Dec., 1972, were already issued in this regard by the High Court on administrative side. However, as per the order dated 25.4.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1220 of 2002, bilingual system of writing judgments in Trial Courts of Uttar Pradesh is in existence and is still continuing. The Presiding Officers of the trial courts are at liberty to write their judgments either in Hindi or in English. But the present system of writing judgments cannot be construed to write a judgment partially in English and partially in Hindi.”

The Bench added that the State of Uttar Pradesh is a Hindi speaking State and majority of the population is Hindi speaking; therefore, the very objective of writing Judgments in Hindi in the State is that ordinary litigant can understand the Judgment written by the Court and also the reasons assigned by the Court for either allowing or rejecting his/her claim.

Advocate Brij Bhushan Upadhyay appeared for the Appellant, while AGA appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The marriage of the Appellant’s daughter was solemnized with the Opposite Party-accused in the year 2021 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. In the marriage, he had given entire domestic articles etc. and Rs. 5,50,000/- cash, but the accused allegedly was not happy with the gift and dowry given at the time of marriage. He allegedly kept on harassing, beating, and torturing his daughter for bringing more money.

It was alleged that when the Appellant came to know about this fact, he sent jewellery of about Rs. 3-4 lakhs, but his hunger for dowry did not end. In 2024, he got an information that the accused allegedly tried to kill his daughter by poisoning her. On inquiry from doctors, he came to know that poison had spread throughout her body due to which she died. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the accused. The Trial Court acquitted the accused and hence, the case was before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above regard, said, “… the factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home, that too, within 07 years of the marriage, is proved by the prosecution, but the same ipso facto is not sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC of the Code against the accused. As a logical consequence of above analysis we are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings returned by the court below regarding material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 and failure of the prosecution to prove any particular act of cruelty or harassment by accused- opposite party 2 in connection with demand of additional dowry soon before her death are based upon due appreciation of the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2.”

The Court was of the opinion that the prosecution has rather failed to prove that the deceased was harassed/ subjected to cruelty on account of demand of additional dowry and it is also not clear as to whether death of the deceased is suicidal or homicidal.

“As the prosecution has failed to prove the crucial ingredients of cruelty and harassment by direct and cogent evidence, therefore, statutory presumption available under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act gets clearly rebutted as the death of deceased is prima facie not a dowry death. The analysis of evidence by the trial court, in our view, has been in the proper perspective i.e. factual and legal and thus the findings recorded by it are correct and cogent findings”, it held.

The Court, therefore, refused to interfere with the impugned Judgment. However, it noted that when a Judgment is partially written in English and partially in Hindi, the very objective of writing down Judgment in Hindi, in a Hindi speaking State would frustrate, as an ordinary person only knowing Hindi language, will not be able to decipher the reasons and logic given by the Trial Judge in a Judgment written in English.

“Certainly, there is an exception to it. If a judgment is written in Hindi and Judicial Officer is relying upon certain specific part and/ or excerpt of the judgment of High Court or Apex Court, then certainly, he is at liberty to quote such portion of the judgment of High Court and Apex Court in English. Similar is the analogy, if a judgment is written in English and a dying declaration recorded in Hindi is there, certainly, such dying declaration can be quoted in the body of judgment ad-verbatim and Presiding Officer is also at liberty to quote some very important and relevant portion of evidence of witness recorded in Hindi. In both the circumstances noted above, the concerned Presiding Officer is however under an obligation to translate the same from Hindi to English or English to Hindi, as the case may be”, it further explained.

The Court remarked that although it has dismissed the Appeal on merits, but the Judgment written by the Trial Judge is a classic example of writing Judgment which is partially English and partially Hindi.

“The judgment is running in 54 pages with total of 199 paragraphs. 63 paragraphs are in English and 125 paragraphs are in Hindi and the rest 11 paragraphs are in both languages. In 11 paragraphs, in which, both Hindi and English, languages have been used, surprisingly, there are certain lines, which are half in Hindi and half in English. It is for this reason that we have referred to this judgment as a classic case of writing judgment”, it added.

Conclusion

The Court also observed that the bilingual system of writing Judgment in Trial Courts in Uttar Pradesh is still continuing, therefore, the Presiding Officers of Trial Courts are at liberty to write their Judgments either in Hindi or in English.

“We hope and trust that the Judicial Officers across the State of Uttar Pradesh will write down their judgments either in Hindi or in English as observed above. A copy of this judgment be circulated amongst all Judicial Officers of State of Uttar Pradesh through Registrar (compliance)”, it directed and concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal, upheld the acquittal, and directed that a copy of its Judgment along with that of the Trial Court shall be placed before the Chief Justice for taking action desirable in this case.

Cause Title- ABC v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:189406-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment