By Dinesh Rai(Eds: Correcting dateline, adding a line after para 6)Allahabad, Oct 13 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court haschastised the trial court judge for telling a "differentstory" propelled by "vitriolic" reasoning convicting dentistcouple Nupur and Rajesh Talwar in the murders of theirdaughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj in May 2008.
Additional Sessions Judge Shyam Lal in Ghaziabad (UP) hadsentenced the Talwars to life imprisonment on November 28,2013, holding them guilty in the twin murder case.
Allowing the appeals of the Talwars against the CBI courtorder, Justices B K Narayana and A K Mishra of the AllahabadHigh Court yesterday acquitted the couple, saying that neitherthe circumstances nor the evidence was enough to hold themguilty.
In "absolute agreement" with Justice Narayana in givingthe Talwars the benefit of doubt, Justice Mishra said, "Thelearned trial Judge has prejudged things in his own fashion,drawn conclusion by embarking on erroneous analogyconjecturing to the brim on apparent facts telling a differentstory propelled by vitriolic reasoning.
"Thus, basing the finding of conviction without caring tosee that it being a case based on circumstantial evidencethings cannot be presumed and stuffed in a manner like thepresent one by adhering to self-created postulates then toroam inside the circle with all fanciful whim," he said.
Writing his own 10-page judgement in the 273-pageverdict, Justice Mishra said, "The learned trial Judge tookevidence and the circumstances of the case for granted andtried to solve it like a mathematical puzzle when one solves agiven question and then takes something for granted in orderto solve that puzzle and question."A copy of the verdict, pronounced yesterday in opencourt, was made available today.
In strong remarks, he said that the trial court could notact like a maths teacher who was solving a mathematicalquestion by analogy after taking certain figure for granted.
"In all criminal trials, analogies must be drawn andconfined within the domain and realm of the evidence, factsand circumstances on record and any analogy which bringsfacts, circumstances and evidence so placed in certain domainoutside the periphery of that domain then that would be a caseof certain aberration deviating from the main path," the highcourt judge said.
Justice Mishra held, "That way, the learned trial Judgehas aberrated and by dint of fallacious analogy and reasoninghas surprisingly assumed fictional animation of the incidentas to what actually took place inside and outside the Flat L32 Jalvayu Vihar and in what manner he has tried to give liveand colourful description of the incident in question.
"...and the whole genesis of the offence was grounded onfact that both the deceased Hemraj and Aarushi were seen byDr.
Rajesh Talwar in fla-grante and thereafter like a filmDirector, the trial Judge has tried to thrust coherenceamongst facts inalienably scattered here and there but notgiving any coherence to the idea as to what in fact happened."Justice Mishra said the additional sessions judge "forgotas to what is issue in hand. He forgot to travel in and aroundtheme of the charge framed by him against the appellants. Itis admitted position to both thesides that no one in fact knew as to what happened."He said it might be a guess work as to how and in whatmanner things happened, but to base the entire reasoningsolely on "guess work" and give concrete shape to suchassumption and then to construe facts and circumstances of thecase falling in line with the evidence on record appears tobe a "futile attempt which attempt altogether acts like aparadox".
"Certainly such recalcitrant mindset in interpretingfacts vis-a-vis circumstances of the case and evaluation ofevidence ought to have been shunned. Consideration of meritshould be based only on evidence and circumstances apparent onrecord, crystallising the truth in substance and alluding tocertainty of decision, backed up by reasonable analogy andscrutiny by the trial Judge as that alone would always be thebest approach while deciding a criminal trial," he said.
Justice Mishra said it was apparent that the trial judgewas "unmindful" of the basic tenets of law and itsapplicability to the given facts and circumstances of the caseand "failed" to properly appraise facts and evaluate evidenceand analyse various circumstances of this case.
"It can by no means be denied that the trial Judge,perhaps out of extra zeal and enthusiasm and on the basis ofself perception adopted partial and parochial approach ingiving vent to his own emotional belief and conviction andthus tried to give concrete shape to his own imaginationstripped of just evaluation of evidence and facts of thiscase," he said in his 10-page order.
Justice Mishra said while appreciating evidence vis-a-visfacts, it was incumbent on the trial court to have angledthings from a common platform and would not have deviated fromthat platform as and when the evidence took another turn.
"May be, that the witnesses of fact testified one way andmay be that the Investigating Officer conducted theinvestigation other way but unnecessarily coherence should notbe brought in between the two incongruous objectives as thatwould be a fallacy which the trial Judge has committed in thiscase," he said.
"Pointer is that the trial Judge should evaluate evidencein its existing form, should not tinge it with his passionatereasoning so as to give a different construction than the onewhich is naturally reflected and forthcoming. Caution enjoinson the trial Judge that he should exercise self-restraint fromdeliberately twisting facts in arbitrary manner and shouldrefrain from recording finding on strength of wrong premise byvirulent and meandering reasoning," he said.
Justice Mishra said the entire judgement was on the wholecreation of "fanciful reasoning with pick and choose presumingfacts with indomitable obstinacy and taking things forgranted, thus, basing conclusion on unfounded evidence.
"The trial Judge is supposed to be fair and transparentand should act as a man of ordinary prudence and he should notstretch his imagination to infinity rendering the wholeexercise mockery of law," he said.
He remarked, "Needless to say that in such sensitivecases, the trial Judge should act with utmost circumspectionand caution. But certain norms should be kept in mind by thetrial Judge while he is deciding any criminal case;(1) The parochial and narrow approach to the facts andevidence should be avoided and evidence of a particular casehas to be read and construed on its face value in line withthe statutory requirement.
"(2) The passionate and rash reasoning should not be theguiding factor while scrutinising evidence, facts andcircumstances of a criminal case.
"(3) The self-perception and realm should not bereflected on analogy of the facts and evidence on record.
"(4) The judgement should not be based on self-createdpostulates.
"(5) The imagination should not be given a concrete formand transparency of approach must be reflected in thejudgement," he said.
Justice Mishra held it appeared that the trial court was"unaware" of the solemn duty cast by the law as the judgeand dealt with the entire case "in style. A finesse".
Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her roomin the Talwars' Noida residence with her throat slit in May2008. The suspicion initially fell on 45-year-old Hemraj, whoat the time was missing. But his body was recovered from theterrace of the house a day later. PTI CORR SCBSA.
This is unedited, unformatted feed from the Press Trust of India wire.