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.

I absolutely agree with Mr. Makkad.  I also add that if the judge knows that the accused is culprit, he knows it not by his personal knowledge but on the basis of the record available.  There is certain lacunae in the evidence.  Had it been removed, it would have not been difficult for the trial court judge to convict the accused.  In the instant case, at the crime site, there were broken pieces of plastic (plastic front portion of helmet from which rider sees).  The investigative department had collected those pieces but not sent to lab to compare it with the helmet of the accused (which was recovered in a broken condition of the plastic part).  Further, the accused had a bandaged hand, when captured.  The investigative department had not taken proper medical report of this injury and intentionally simply believed the version put by the accused that he met with an accident and hence his helmet was broken and he received hand injury.  The investigative department had not verified these facts, for ultimate reasons.  Hence, hon'ble High Court came to such conclusion after filling up the gaps in the evidence part.  There are some other reasons for the H.C. to come to such just conclusion.   In my humble opinion, the trial court, had it felt that the accused was the real culprit and the evidence was not enough to convict him, the appropirate course of action was to send the matter for reinvestigation particularly showing which area had to be investigated. 

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?

Dear experts,

You all are aware that there are three parts in Indian criminal jurisprudence.  The first investigation part, the second is inquiry part and the last one is trial part.  My proposition, in my above response, is that a trial court judge has got the power, during the trial, to ask the investigative agency to investigate further  to bring the facts beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused or further investigation may be ordered to brng in new new accused in the case.  My proposition is that this power is vested with the trial court judge.  Am I correct or not?

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.

@Sh. Assumi,

The reinvestigation necessiates when the trial judge comes to know that the accused is the real culprit but cannot convict him  as the I.O.  due to inefficiency or malafide intentions has left certain aspects, which required investigation and the outcome of the reinvestigation, according to judge's perception, proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.  If the investigation is a faulty one, in the appeal also, justice cannot be delivered, as reappreciation of same facts cannot change the mind of appellate court.  Of course, the reinvestigation can be ordered only before taking the statements of accused under S.313.  Kindly refer Section 319, which says during the trial, if the court comes to the opinion that some other person is also co-accused, it would call him and conduct trial afresh.  I am citing this section only for the purpose, that the trial court has got the power even during the trial for reinvestigation.  These are only my opinions.  Not based on any precedents.

@ Sh. Jaiswal,

You should not wonder if the trial court judgment may be turned down by the appellate court.  There is a scope for reappreciation of evidence and hence decisions may change in the appeals.  That is why precisely, the scope for appeal is provided.