|
Though I know
he is the man who committed the crime, I acquit him, giving him
benefit of doubt.
This emotional statement was
made by Session Judge, G.P Thareja, while acquitting the accused
by giving benefit of doubt to him in Priyadarshini Matto case.
People raised hue and cry over
this statement and quoted it as an only case in history, where
judge give such kind of statement. But history repeats itself, as
P.D Kode, Judge of Special Court for trial of 1993 Mumbai blasts
case. Mr. Kode stated:
I have
concluded that I will give them (some members of the Menon family)
the benefit of doubt. It is not a clean acquitted but short of
being guilty.
As in this case on 12th
September 2006, Mr. Kode, Judge of Special Court, convicted four
of the eight members of the Menon family in 1993 Mumbai blasts,
while doing so Mr. Kode failed to exercise the restraint, broke
out with emotions and came out with new concept of
acquittal short of guilty.
It is not favourable for
justice to express such kind of expressions. Gentlemen of long
robe might know that justice means enforcement of law. It is
incumbent on judges to adjudicate in pursuant of law and evidence.
Mere hunches, however strong it may be, are no effective
substitute of legal proof.
Mr. Kode and Mr.Thareja might
be in pursuant of this principle acquitted the accused but they
made a mistake of delivering emotions and hunches collaterally
with law. Hunches and evidence can't go together. There are only
two options in law guilty or not guilty, then from where this new
concept of acquittal short of guilty was
imported. If cases are to be decided on emotions then what would
be need of law and rule of evidence
No doubt they disposed of
cases in pursuant to law but inserted otiose comments. When cases
were decided in pursuant of law, then what was the need to make
the decision spicy by giving unwanted philosophy
No person of legal fraternity
can deny the fact that it is wrong on part of judges to make such
kind of comments. This wrong might be meager in eyes of many but
its impact is highly dangerous, because it casts wrong impression
on society owing to fact that everybody is not acquainted with
gobble-de-gook of law. A person of legal brethren might apprehend
their emotions but laymen conceive it as injustice. We have
burning instance of Priyadarshini Matto case only how social
activists highlighted it as injustice and dishonesty on part of
judiciary and took matter into streets with placards depicting the
statement of Mr.Thareja. Such demonstrations, with placards
depicting the statement of Mr. Thareja, Though I know he is the
man who committed the crime, I acquit him, giving him benefit of
doubt?, lowered down the confidence and trust of people in Justice
and Judicial System as well. For laymen it might also be
contradictory decision. This kind of utterances is also against
the judicial principle:
Justice
should not only be done, but should also manifestly appear to have
been done.
Dr. Justice A R. Lakshmanan
Judge, Supreme Court of India opined:
Unnecessary and unwarranted utterances are
bound to embarrass not only others, but the Judge himself...
(See page no.32 of Lawz, July 2006)
The seat of Judge is seat of
god. Besides powers and discretion it holds responsibilities and
duties. Judges are also bound by law and they should not impart
their emotions and otiose comments. So, it is honorably prayed
you're lordship:
Control Your Emotions
|
You're
Lordship: Control Your Emotions
More
Articles:
The
author can be reached at:
vikaslegalindia@legalserviceindia.com /
