Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     19 January 2018

Inviting jurisprudential debate on judge duty to do justice:

In 18th century there was a judge Cambro of Mmalta, Italy, who was early raiser. One early fine morning while he was looking out from his balcony, he saw a man hotly chased by another. The victim was overtaken  just under his balcony and was stabbed with a knife. At that very point of time a police constable was to be seen in the distance and the assailant leaving the knife with the sheath in the wound and ran away. Soon a baker came with the basket of bread and saw the victim laying dead in a pool of blood. As he tried to remove the knife from the wound he saw the constable approaching from a distance. Frightened as he was, quickly stood up taking the blood stained knife in his hand, put it in his basket and concealed himself in a neighbour house. All this was seen by Judge Cambro.

The constable arrived there, found the victim dead and his body warm and still bleeding and thought that the murderer was hiding somewhere in the neighbourhood. He made a search and the baker was found with his basket with blood stained knife. Terror seized the baker and he gave incoherent inconsistent and conflicting answer. His hands were stained with blood. This circumstantial evidence  was  sufficient to convict anyone. The baker was put on trial before Judge Cambro; there being no other judge he had to try him.

Judge Cambro found the circumstantial evidence so clinching he convict him and brushed aside his personal knowledge that the baker was innocent and convicted him to death as required by law. The sentence was duly carried out.

Later when the truth became known the judge’s conduct was freely commented upon and some public even cry for his blood, while other judges appreciated his conduct for doing justice according to Law:

Inviting Your Opinion Please:

 



Learning

 4 Replies

Vijay Raj Mahajan (Advocate)     19 January 2018

As an eye witness to the incidence, it was the responsibility of the judge, being part of the society, to keep aside his position and stood as witness for the whole crime sense.

The judge being part of the whole episode should be out of the chair of justice because by not doing so he infringed one of the cardinal Principle of Natural Justice which is to remain unbiased. 

1 Like

TGK REDDI   19 January 2018

Agree with the Replies.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     20 January 2018

If that is accepted, in any case, if a Judge steps down from his chair and took up the robe of a witness on the dock, will his statements be accepted as Gospel thruth and acquit or convict the accused?

Consider this, in a similar Classic case of R.G.Limsey, decided in early 1950s, Supreme Court acquitted the accused despite the evidence on records:

Evidence against the three ACCUSED:

Accused writing letter to deceased to meet him in his house

At about 5 pm the deceased and accused were found together in accused house

Accused servant heard a cry “Oh father, I am dead”

The servant saw from a crack of the door of his master, the deceased lying on the floor on his back, with one accused holding him on his hair, while the second accused holding his legs, with the third main accused bending over the deceased with a sword.

During police search, a freshly constructed tomb with foul smell inside the accused house, and when the tomb was opened up, deceased body was found.

Both the lower courts convicted the three accused, but Supreme Court acquitted them.

 

 

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     21 January 2018

Yes, Ramesh, I know that even after hanging em high, you will vouch safe that they are still alive.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register