After the Allahabad High Court acquitted Nupur and Rajesh Talwar in the 2008 double-murder case of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj, the judges chastised the trial court judge for the way the trial was conducted by telling a “different story” propelled by “vitriolic” reasoning, convicting the couple.
Additional Sessions Judge Shyam Lal in Ghaziabad (UP) had sentenced the Talwars to life imprisonment on 28 November 2013, holding them guilty in the twin murder case.
After acquitting the couple, the judge stated that neither the circumstances nor the evidence was enough to convict the couple.
In “absolute agreement” with Justice Narayana, in giving the Talwars the benefit of doubt, Justice Mishra said, “The learned trial Judge has prejudged things in his own fashion, drawn conclusion by embarking on erroneous analogy conjecturing to the brim on apparent facts telling a different story propelled by vitriolic reasoning”.
In a 10-page judgment on the 273-page verdict, Justice Mishra said:
In strong remarks, he said that the trial court could not act like a maths teacher who was solving a mathematical question by analogy after taking a certain figure for granted.
“In all criminal trials, analogies must be drawn and confined within the domain and realm of the evidence, facts and circumstances on record and any analogy which brings facts, circumstances and evidence so placed in certain domain outside the periphery of that domain then that would be a case of certain aberration deviating from the main path,” the high court judge said.
Justice Mishra held that the trial court judge “by dint of fallacious analogy and reasoning has surprisingly assumed fictional animation of the incident as to what actually took place inside and outside the Flat L 32 Jalvayu Vihar and in what manner he has tried to give live and colourful description of the incident in question.”
Justice Mishra said the additional sessions judge “forgot as to what is issue in hand. He forgot to travel in and around theme of the charge framed by him against the appellants. It is admitted position to both the sides that no one in fact knew as to what happened.”
He said it might be a guess work as to how and in what manner things happened, but to base the entire reasoning solely on “guess work” and give concrete shape to such assumption and then to construe facts and circumstances of the case falling in line with the evidence on record appears to be a “futile attempt which attempt altogether acts like a paradox”.
Justice Mishra said it was apparent that the trial judge was “unmindful” of the basic tenets of law and its applicability to the given facts and circumstances of the case and “failed” to properly appraise facts and evaluate evidence and analyse various circumstances of this case.
Justice Mishra stated that the judge should have evaluated the evidence in its existing form, rather than tinging it with his passionate reasoning.
Justice Mishra said the entire judgment was on the whole creation of “fanciful reasoning, taking things for granted” and thus, “basing conclusion on unfounded evidence.”
He remarked, “Needless to say that in such sensitive cases, the trial Judge should act with utmost circumspection and caution. But certain norms should be kept in mind by the trial Judge while he is deciding any criminal case”;
Justice Mishra held it appeared that the trial court was “unaware” of the solemn duty cast by the law as the judge and dealt with the entire case “in style. A finesse”.
TQ
