Choked with emotion or driven by local sentiments, out of mere surmise or suspicion, a court of law cannot afford to convict an accused, the bench said.
The courts of law cannot assume the role of a monarch or dictator so as to impose any punishment on anyone at their whims and fancies even in the absence of any legal evidence, remarked the Madras High Court while acquitting a man convicted by the trial court for murder.
Subramani was accused of killing a watchman in charge of a temple and for committing robbery of the temple and the trial court had sentenced him to life imprisonment. A three-judge bench was constituted to examine legality of the order of the magistrate who, in this case, had granted permission to the police to further investigate the matter, after the acceptance of the final report filed earlier by the police.
The full bench, headed by Justice S Nagamuthu, rejecting the contention that the order granting permission to further investigate the matter is illegal, made the following observation in this aspect:
This conclusion of the trial court is totally erroneous and illegal as pendency of other criminal cases against the accused cannot be a ground even to remotely assume that the appellant/A1 was the perpetrator of the crime in the instant case, the court said.
“The courts of law cannot allow themselves to be swayed by these kinds of totally irrelevant substances which are brought to the notice of the court not by way of evidence, but by way of wholly unrelated materials. The courts of law cannot assume the role of a monarch or dictator so as to impose any punishment on anyone at their whims and fancies even in the absence of any legal evidence,” the bench observed.
Read the Judgment here.