Jurisprudence

Whole judicial system of India is based upon the evidence brought on file hence personal knowledge of judge has nothing to do with the evidence. If the personal knowledge of judged is allowed to prevail over the evidence brought on file then it shall become most dangerous power with judiciary and shall be fatal to whole judicial system. So there is no strange over the comments of trial judge.

i think he is an honest judge.

The judge had no business to express his knowledge. Evaluate the evidence and decide.

What did the magistrate say while sentencing Rathore to 6 months?

Age, meritorious service, sick daughter. What a mitigating circumstance to award 6 months and use discretion.

Contradicts and contrarary  to each other. It all depends who is the accused and whom to favour.There are  Laws  and judgements in favour of everyone, only tilting is reqd.

This is very controversial issues. There is a classic case of a Judge in Malta Italy.One fine morning the Judge saw a man stabbing another pesron from his balcony, and the assaliant fled from the scene of the occurence.Thereafter he saw a baker who unloaded his stock and attend to the injured deceased and at that point of time the Police arrived and saw the injured person and the baker with a knife in his hand smeared with blood. All these incident were seen by the Judge. The baker was ofcourse arrested by the Police and was brought to the Court and tried by the Judge who saw the whole incidents. The innocent  Baker was found guilty and convicted by the same Judge. Question is should the Judge become a witness in a case tried before him?

Prabakhar Sir, further investigation after full fledged trial, just because the accused could not be convicted? If the law permit such proceedings there will be no end to criminal proceedings. I am of the view that after full fledged trial the only option is appeal by the State.

Sir, I case of Priyadarshini Matoo , the judgement had achieved finality after going thro' evry phase. So on what ground it opened again, and the judgement is entirely opposite. Every condition and situation was same. If this case reinvestigated, then why not other injustices?

Once, Justice Markandey Katju had said that "law is inexact science, depends on the judge sitting"

Is it like that?

I am totally confused.