HC finds trial court judgment as one of worst judgment they ever seen

In paragraph 24 of the judgment, the trial Court has extracted the alleged confession statement of all the accused in full ignoring the bar contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act and has concluded that the accused 3 to 5 held the deceased and accused 2 attacked the deceased with a wooden rod and the first accused accused attacked the deceased with crowbar.

The above extractions, which we have made from the judgment of the trial Court would go a long way to expose the prejudice the learned trial Judge had against the people belonging to a particular community. It is not understandable as to how a Court could presume that the people belonging to a particular community will traditionally indulge in the commission of a particular type of crimes. It is also shocking to note that the trial judge had the strong conviction that the particular community people would indulge in a particular type of crimes and the same could be inherited like a family trade. It is not also understandable as to how the trial Court could come to the conclusion that the traditional occupation of the people belonging to that particular community was stealing. Assuming that during the primitive period, the people belonging to the said community were indulging in thefts, it is ridiculous on the part of the trial Court to conclude that in the instant case, these accused had committed murder and robbery because they belong to the said community. It is also shocking to note that the trial Court had expressed its surprise over the fact that the people belonging to this community have now come to the main stream of the society and they have started cutting their hairs, trimming their beards, wearing full hand shirt and pants.

Judiciary cannot afford to decide the cases by tracing the criminal activities of the forefathers of the accused. No Court of Law can stigmatize a community as a whole. Proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of an accused should be reached on the basis of the evidence on record. Any finding of guilt based on no evidence but on communal considerations is unconstitutional. In the instant case, the trial Court has traced the socio economic as well as the communal background of the accused and has come to the conclusion that these accused have committed the crime solely because they belong to a particular community. This judgment is a classic example as to how a Court of Law in this Country should not pen down a judgment. In our little experience, we have not come across this kind of worst judgment. Let this be the last judgment ever written on communal consideration.