The following comments made by High Court
about CBI court Judge in arushi case would be made again 10 years from now by
High Court about CBI Judge who convicted baba Ram Rahim ;
The learned trial Judge has prejudged things
in his own fashion, drawn a conclusion by embarking on erroneous analogy
conjecturing to the brim on apparent facts telling a different story propelled
by vitriolic reasoning (sic),”
“The learned trial Judge took evidence and
the circumstances of the case for granted and tried to solve it like a
mathematical puzzle when one solves a given question and then takes something
for granted in order to solve that puzzle and question (sic),”
“That way, the learned trial judge has
aberrated and by dint of fallacious analogy and reasoning has surprisingly
assumed fictional animation of the incident as to what actually took place
inside and outside the Flat L 32, and in what manner he has tried to give live
and colourful description of the incident in question (sic).”
“..like a film director, the trial judge has
tried to thrust coherence amongst facts inalienably scattered here and there
but not giving any coherence to the idea as to what in fact happened (sic),”
the HC judge added.
The High Court order further said possibly
the trial judge, “perhaps out of extra zeal and enthusiasm and on the basis of
self perception adopted partial and parochial approach in giving vent to his
own emotional belief and conviction and thus tried to give concrete shape to
his own imagination stripped of just evaluation of evidence and facts of this
case”.
“It is apparent that the trial judge was
unmindful of the basic tenets of law and its applicability to the given facts
and circumstances of the case and failed to properly appraise facts and
evaluate evidence and analyze various circumstances of this case (sic),” the
court said.
