Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court came down heavily on the trial court judge in the Aarushi Talwar murder case, saying he took evidence and circumstances of the case for granted and tried to solve it like a maths teacher or a film director, trying to give concrete shape to his own imagination stripped of just evaluation of evidence and facts in convicting parents Rajesh and Nupur Talwar.
"The learned trial judge (S.L. Yadav of special CBI court in Ghaziabad) 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.
"Thus, basing the finding of conviction without caring to see that it being a case based on circumstantial evidence, things cannot be presumed and stuffed in a manner like the present one by adhering to self-created postulates then to roam inside the circle with all fanciful whim," said justice Arvind Kumar Mishra, who on Thursday set aside the order of conviction in the bench headed by justice B.K. Narayana.
He said that he was in absolute agreement with the conclusion drawn by justice Narayana which was consensual in the sense that they had elaborate discussions on each vital aspects of the case and they agreed.
Justice Mishra said, however, some reflection needs to be made upon the style and approach of the trial judge who recorded conviction and awarded life sentence to the dentist couple.
He said the 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.
But,the High Court judge said, the point is that the learned trial judge cannot act like a maths teacher who is solving a mathematical question by analogy after taking certain figures 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," he said.
That way, justice Mishra said the trial court 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 Flat L-32 Jalvayu Vihar, and in what manner he has tried to give live and colorful description of the incident in question.
The whole genesis of the offense was grounded on the fact that both the deceased Hemraj and Aarushi were seen by Dr. Rajesh Talwar in flagrante (wrong doing) 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.
"The learned trial Judge forgot as to what is the 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. It may 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. Certainly such recalcitrant mindset in interpreting facts vis-a-vis circumstances of the case and evaluation of evidence ought to have been shunned.
"Consideration of merit should be based only on evidence and circumstances apparent on record, crystallizing the truth in substance and alluding to certainty of decision, backed up by reasonable analogy and scrutiny by the trial Judge as that alone would always be the best approach while deciding a criminal trial," justice Mishra said.
He 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 analyze various circumstances of this case.