Trial court judge who convicted Talwars acted ‘like film director’: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad high court came down heavily on the trial court judge who sentenced Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Talwar ti life imprisonment in the Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case.india Updated: Oct 14, 2017 14:40 IST
The Allahabad high court which on Thursday acquitted dentist couple Dr Nupur and Dr Rajesh Talwar in the sensational Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case ticked off the trial court judge for having “prejudged things” and acting “like a film director”.
The Talwars were sentenced to life imprisonment in November, 2013 for the double murder of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj in May 2008. On Thursday, the Allahabad high court set aside the trial court order delivered by judge Shyam Lal who has since now retired.
In his comments in the judgement, Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra of the Allahabad high court said that some reflection were needed on the style and approach of the trial Judge who convicted and sentence the Talwar couple.
“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 (sic),” the court order said.
“The learned trial Judge took evidence and the circumstances of the case for granted and tried to solve it like a mathematical puzzle when one solves a given question and then takes something for granted in order to solve that puzzle and question (sic),” the court further said.
Shyam Lal, the former special CBI court Judge was assigned the trial of sensational Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case which ran into thousands of documents, scores of exhibits and forensic reports. He delivered the judgment in November, 2013 at Ghaziabad before retiring that month.
While observing that the trial court judge cannot act like a maths teacher solving a mathematical question by analogy after taking certain figure for granted, justice Mishra observed, “That way, the learned trial judge has aberrated and 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 (sic).”
“...and the whole genesis of the offence was grounded on fact that both the deceased Hemraj and Arushi were seen by Dr. Rajesh Talwar in fla-grante and thereafter like a film director, the trial judge has tried to thrust coherence amongst facts inalienably scattered here and there but not giving any coherence to the idea as to what in fact happened (sic),” the high court judge further added.
Commenting further, the order said that it cannot be denied that the trial Judge, “perhaps out of extra zeal and enthusiasm and on the basis of self perception adopted partial and parochial approach in giving vent to his own emotional belief and conviction and thus tried to give concrete shape to his own imagination stripped of just evaluation of evidence and facts of this case”.
“It is 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 analyze various circumstances of this case (sic),” the high court said.
Following the appeals by Talwars against their conviction and life sentence, the Allahanad high court on Thursday set aside the trial court order, saying that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts.
The high court acquitted the Talwars of all charges framed against them and also ordered their release from the Dasna jail.
The trial court had held the Talwar couple guilty and awarded rigorous life imprisonment to both for murders. The trial court had also awarded five years rigorous imprisonment for destruction of evidence and additionally awarded one year simple imprisonment to Rajesh who was additionally charged under section 203 of the IPC for lodging misleading FIR.