________________
own words spoken during interrogation all led to the conclusion that the accused person was the killer. The Judge was in a dilemma. His conscience told him that the accused was not the killer but the procedure of the court proved otherwise and considered him fit for punishment. Eventually, it is not the justice that prevails, it is the law that supersedes. According to the legal procedure, he had to sentence the accused, but why hang an innocent person? Thinking thus and also for the appeasement of his own conscience, he sentenced him to only a life imprisonment. The accused was definitely not the killer, so why would he accept such a verdict? He appealed to the High Court. Based upon the proceedings, the Judge in the High Court thought, "Why was the accused given a light sentence of life imprisonment? This man should be hanged till death." Even in the Supreme Court, the sentence was upheld and the date of hanging was fixed. The Brahmin Judge was perplexed when he heard about this. His firmly rooted faith in the idiom, ‘In the reign of the Lord, there may be a delay, but never anarchy' was shaken up. In the end, he paid a visit to the accused in the jail on the day before the hanging. He spoke openly to him telling him that his case had come to an end and that he would definitely face the death penalty. He told him he had come to him not as a Judge but as a curious person and he had a few questions for him. He hoped the prisoner would answer them truthfully. The accused agreed to tell him everything. He had nothing to lose and he would not lie in his last moments.
Then the Judge asked him, "I was a witness to the
86
