While concluding his arguments Mr. Chopra contended that it is the obligation of every court to find out the truth and function within the bounce set by law and act on the evidence placed before it. The emotions and sentiments should not be allowed to interfere in the judicial pronouncements. In support of his contention Mr. Chopra mainly relied upon two cases of the Supreme Court. In the case titled Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., the Supreme Court has made the observation, the relevant extract of which is quoted hereinbelow :-
“The Courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because of acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the Courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused.”
In another judgment titled State (Delhi Administration) V/s. Laxman Kumar, the Supreme Court has been more critic and made the following observations:-
“It is the obligation of every court to find out the truth and act according to law once the truth is discovered. In that search for truth obviously the Court has to function within the bounce set by law and act on the evidence placed before it. What happens outside the court rooms when the Court is busy in its process of adjudication is indeed in irrelevant and unless a proper cushion is provided to keep the proceedings within the Court room dissociated from the heat generated outside the Court room either through the News Media or through flutter in the public mind, the cause of justice is bound to suffer.”
“ It is the outcome of cool deliberations and the screening of the material by the informed mind of the judge that leads to determination of the lis. If the cushion is lost and the court room is allowed to vibrate with the heat generated outside it, the adjudicatory process suffers and the search for truth is stifled.”
“The Courts cannot allow any emotional and sentimental feelings to come into judicial pronouncements. Once sentimental and emotions feelings are allowed to enter the judicial mind the Judge is bound to view the evidence with a bias and in that case the conclusion may also be biased resulting in some cases in great injustice. The cases have to be decided strictly on evidence howsoever cruel or horrifying the crime may be. All possible chances of innocent man being convicted have to be ruled out. There should be no hostile atmosphere against an accused in court. A hostile atmosphere is bound to interfere in an unbiased approach as well as a decision. This has to be avoided at all costs.”
