Public opinion or collective conscience of the society 27. With regard to the second submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, that is, relating to the collective conscience of the society or public opinion, we draw attention to an extremely educative discussion on the topic in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra11 in paragraphs 80 to 89 of the Report. We do not find the necessity of repeating the enlightening discussion. We may only note that in this decision, reference was made with regard to this topic in Bachan Singh in paragraph 126 of the Report to the following effect: “126. Incidentally, the rejection by the people of the approach, adopted by the two learned Judges in Furman12, furnishes proof of the fact that judicial opinion does not necessarily reflect the moral attitudes of the people. At the same time, it is a reminder that Judges should not take upon themselves the responsibility of becoming oracles or spokesmen of public opinion: Not being representatives of the people, if is often better, as a matter of judicial restraint, to leave the function of assessing public opinion to the chosen representatives of the people in the legislature concerned.” (Emphasis supplied by us). In our opinion therefore, the learned Trial Judge was in error in coming to the conclusion that the collective conscience of the society was disturbed and felt repulsed by the gravity of the crime committed by the appellant. In view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Bachan Singh and in Bariyar it would be wise if impressions gathered on what is perceived to be public opinion or collective conscience of the society are 11 12 (2009) 6 SCC 498 Furman v. Georgia, 33 L Ed 2d 346 : 408 US 238 (1972) R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 16 of 19