Aarushi-Hemraj murder: CBI judge made mockery of law, acted like fanciful film director, says Allahabad HC

It added: “The judge took evidence and circumstances of the case for granted and tried to solve it like a mathematical puzzle… But a judge cannot act like a maths teacher… In all criminal trials, analogies must be drawn and confined within the domain and realm of evidence, facts and circumstances on record…”

“That way, the learned trial Judge, by dint of fallacious analogy and reasoning, surprisingly assumed fictional animation of the incident as to what actually took place inside and outside the Flat L32 Jalvayu Vihar. The whole genesis of the offence was grounded on the fact that both the deceased, Hemraj and Arushi, were seen by Dr Rajesh Talwar in fla-grante. Thereafter, like a film director, the judge has tried to thrust coherence amongst facts, inalienably scattered here and there, but not giving any coherence as to what in fact happened.”

Dasna Jail

The judgment also mentioned that the Talwars’ counsel submitted to the High Court that, “the tenor of the impugned judgment clearly indicates that the trial judge had prejudged the whole issue and was predetermined to convict the accused-appellants”.

Citing a 1963 Supreme Court order, it said, “In special relevance to criminal cases where the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstances… the apex court held that if the circumstances proved in the case are consistent either with innocence or guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt…”

One of the instances where the HC judgment said the trial judge “conjectured” is during Dr Sunil Dohre’s testimony on Aarushi’s post-mortem. Lal was taken to believe the CBI’s “feeble submission” that the doctor was “influenced by his acquaintances who were close to Dr Rajesh Talwar” to hide the fact of rape.

“… The trial court had failed to notice that Dr Dohre — neither in his four statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, nor in his examination-in-chief — had deposed that he was asked not to mention anything in his report about sexual assault”.

The HC also gave a tutorial on how the merits of a criminal trial case should be decided: “Consideration of merit should be based only on evidence and circumstances apparent on record… backed up by reasonable analogy and scrutiny by the trial judge.”

The HC also pulled up the judge for “dealing with the entire case in style — a finesse” instead of being aware of “the solemn duty cast by the law as the judge”. “It is apparent that the trial judge was unmindful of the basic tenets of law and its applicability… and failed to properly appraise facts and evaluate evidence,” it said.