A judge has no will of his own: Karnataka High Court advises judges to be dispassionate and cautious while trying heinous offences

While deciding an appeal filed by two brothers challenging their conviction for murder, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently advised judges to remain "dispassionate" and be free from "personal baggages" while passing orders in heinous crimes. .The Bench of Justices Sunil Dutt Yadav and P Krishna Bhat observed,."A judge is required to be dispassionate. It may be a tall order; nevertheless, it is, and, should be his first creed. It is difficult to remain uninfluenced by impressions, passions, inclinations, predilections, tides, currents, events and even what is commonly regarded as “personal baggages” to which human mind is a normal habitat."Karnataka High Court.Further, referring to what Justice BN Cardozo of the United States Supreme Court once said, the Bench added,. "A judge has no ‘will’ of his own. In the calling of a judge his only ‘will’ is, only ‘choice’ he has is – if that can be called one – to give force to the ‘cumulative effect’ of the evidence placed before him taking inspiration from the statutes applicable and settled precedents.".Factual Background .The appellants, Yankappa and Hanmant Hirekurbur, and their parents were constantly humiliating the deceased Laxmi, on the basis of her physical appearance and ability to do household chores..On July 2, 2013, the appellants and their parents quarreled with the deceased and when she was weeping, appellant No.1 directed her to go and cook and when she did not stir from the place, he hit her on her back. .The accused dragged her and threw her into a well, which was on the land being cultivated by them. By a judgment dated December 31, 2014, the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder) and 498A (subjecting woman to cruelty) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The parents were acquitted..Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants approached the High Court. .What the Court held .On the issue of why the Sessions Judge had entered a finding of guilt against the appellants for such heinous offences under various sections of the IPC, the Bench observed: ."Sessions Judge was swayed by the fact that a woman who was heavily pregnant had to meet a tragic end for no discernible reason and due to the same, subconsciously, perhaps on account of ghastly nature of the death, permitted himself to be provoked to connect, what appeared to his mind, the several links in the chain of evidence, albeit, non-existent ones resulting in his getting an impression that case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.".Recounting the observation of Justice Vivian Bose in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Bench observed,."Unless a judge trying a heinous offence does not administer a caution to himself, especially, when his moral sense of justice is seriously disturbed, he is likely to fall into an error inducing in him “an instinctive reaction against a dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law."Karnataka High Court.The Bench also noted that the material witnesses had completely turned hostile. Except for the evidence of official witnesses, there was no legal evidence to substantiate the alleged ill-treatment of the deceased as projected by the prosecution, it was further pointed out.."Prosecution entirely rests its case on circumstantial evidence. Trial Courts should always bear in mind the correct principles of law while deciding whether the evidence placed before it passes muster on the touchstone of proof beyond reasonable doubt.".At this point, the Bench also relied on principles laid down in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa..The Bench also made it clear that the subordinate court cannot imagine a cause for the death of the deceased. .With these pertinent observations, the Bench set aside the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, and acquitted the brothers. ."On a re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that there is nothing to support the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and he has entirely acted on hunches, instincts and conjectures which is impermissible in law. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 31.12.2014 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC is liable to be set aside.".[Read the judgment]