Contents of judgment

Perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the Trial Court while holding the accused-appellant guilty of the offence of rape and child abuse convicted him consecutively under S. 376 read with 377-B P.P.Cs and under S. 53 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 and sentenced him to undergo 14 years R.I.

However, the Trial Court neither awarded the conviction under separate heads/Sections leveled against the accused-appellant nor advanced the reasons why death sentence or life imprisonment was not awarded to the accused-appellant under S. 376, P.P.C.

Subsection (3) of S. 376, P.P.C. provided that in case of committing rape of a minor, the accused shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life

Similarly, as per subsection (4) of S. 376, P.P.C, a public servant if guilty of offence of rape shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life

On record, it was established that the victim in the instant case was a minor girl and the accused-appellant was a public servant being posted as sweeper in Government Girls High School, however, the Trial Court while passing the impugned conviction had totally ignored the provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C.

Accused appellant had been convicted to 14 years imprisonment on a single count, however, the Trial Court neither passed separate sentence under separate Sections of law nor recorded the reasons for awarding him lesser punishment as required under the provisions of S. 367(5), Cr.P.C.

Thus, the impugned judgment being passed in violation of the mandatory provision of S. 367, Cr.P.C, could not sustain in the eye of law, therefore, the same was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court for re-writing of judgment strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under S. 367, Cr.P.C.

Appeal was partially allowed.

Record showed that the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court was not in the legal format as described in S. 367, Cr.P.C

Section 367 Cr.P.C obligated the Court to deliver a formal judgment at the end of trial

Said Section further prescribed the format of the judgment, which shall comprise three components: (i) the points for determination, (ii) the reasons, providing justification for the sentence or order of acquittal, and (iii) the decision with corresponding order

Impugned judgment of conviction lacked all the three mandatory components of a valid judgment as mentioned in S.367, Cr.P.C.

Impugned judgment of conviction was violative of S.367, Cr.P.C

Moreover, it was on the record that on 17-03-2017, Trial Court categorically charged the convict/appellant under a single head i.e. for his alleged abetment in the occurrence

On the contrary, Trial Court had convicted the appellant for causing intentional death of deceased sons of complainant and sharing common intention punishable under S. 34, P.P.C

Such deviation of the Trial Court was neither mentioned in the impugned judgment nor the Trial Court at any stage of trial altered the charge by exercising jurisdiction under S.227, Cr.P.C, nor was the same justified with any cogent reasons

Prosecution's case restedon the oral testimony of three eye-witnesses and the corroboratory evidence which consisted of the recovery of crime empties, blood stained soil and last worn clothes of the deceased

All the three eye-witnesses implicated the convict/appellant for his issuing command to the principal accused at the place of occurrence

After a thorough examination of the prosecution evidence on record pertaining to the charge of abetment, the prosecution evidence on the particular charge was insufficient to sustain the conviction passed against the convict/appellant, lacking crucial elements necessary to establish abetment

In the impugned judgment of conviction, the Trial Court had neither discussed the prosecution evidence-with reference to the particular charge of abetment nor had recorded a singular reason for passing the conviction and capital punishment against the convict/appellant

Mere reproducing of the statements of witnesses in the judgment did not fulfill the legal requirement of S.367, Cr.P.C.

Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court against the convict/appellant was incorrect and flawed, therefore warranted reversal

Further, it was found that the convict/ appellant at the relevant time of the occurrence was empty handed and that regarding his alleged abetment there was no evidence on the record

Therefore, the sentence passed by the Trial Court against the convict/appellant was set-aside

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Although, it was an admitted fact that the Trial Court while framing charge against the accused persons had charged them for the offence of common intention falling under S. 34, P.P.C., but while deciding the lis, each accused was dealt on the basis of 'individual liability'

Conviction was recorded against accused "B" for the murder of the deceased, however, the applicability of S. 34, P.P.C., with reference to other accused was totally ignored and they were convicted on the basis of individual liability without assigning a 'definite finding' regarding their participation in commission of offence in furtherance of their common intention falling under S. 34, P.P.C

When all the accused persons were specifically charged for having committed the crime in furtherance of their common intention, the trial Court ought to have given a 'definite finding' regarding the applicability of Ss. 302 & 34, P.P.C., to all the accused persons qua the charge of murder

Trial Court ignored the fact that all the accused persons committed their respective overt acts in furtherance of their common object, and as such, they were part of the unlawful assembly, hence, the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused on the basis of individual liability in the absence of any 'definite finding' to negate that the act of each individual was without premeditation, was beyond the scope of law

Act of each individual, if committed in furtherance of the common intention, the facts were to be dealt conjointly to arrive at a conclusion in the spirit of law

Case was remanded to the Trial Court for the limited purpose to re-write the judgment on the basis of existing judicial record within two months strictly in accordance with law.

Prosecution case was that the accused was involved in the present case with an allegation that he made firing upon two persons of complainant party

After submission of challan, a full-fledged trial was conducted; the appellant and late co-accused were initially convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under S.302(b), ten years under S.324 and three years under S.337 P.P.C

Being aggrieved of said judgment and order, appellant and another convict had filed appeal, which was allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence and matter was remanded foe de novo Trial after reframing charges

During Trial, one of the accused died so case abated to his extent

Appellant was convicted and sentenced whereas two respondents were acquitted

Charges were framed against the accused persons under different heads, however, while recording judgment, Trial Court had not mentioned whether it had acquitted the appellant under S.302/34 P.P.C

Said appellant in previous trial was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under S.302/34 P.P.C

Such lacuna in the impugned judgment rendered the same illegal in terms of mandate of S.367, Cr.P.C

As per S.367, Cr.P.C, it was the statutory duty of the Trial Court to record reasons as well as points of determination on the basis of which it was convicting or acquitting an accused person and it was also its duty to specify the offence and the section of law under which an accused was convicted

Record showed that while recording the conviction of appellant and acquitting the accused/respondents, the Trial Court did not record any reason(s) qua the applicability of S.34, P.P.C in respect of the nominated accused

Trial Court had though convicted the appellant under S.324, P.P.C for ten years, under Ss.337-A(i) and 337-F(ii) P.P.C. for three years each and under S.337-D, P.P.C to pay Arsh amount, however, no finding qua the applicability of S.34, P.P.C had been recorded

Therefore, on such ground too, the impugned judgment was not sustainable in the eye of law

Since the impugned order and judgment of the Trial Court fell short of the legal requirements, therefore, the same was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for rewriting of the judgment by rendering a definite decision either for the acquittal or conviction under/for each head of charge as well as applicability or otherwise of S.34, P.P.C against the nominated accused person(s).

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, obstructing a public servant in the performance of their duties, assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant while they are performing their duties, attempt to commit robbery, common intention, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Contents of judgment

Rewriting of judgment

Trial Court awarded punishment of simple imprisonment for 14 years to the appellants, which was quite inappropriate

It was not mentioned in impugned judgment that each of the appellant had been convicted under S.302, P.P.C

In last paragraph of the judgment, appellants had been convicted for causing death of deceased Police Constable under S.7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and again it was simple imprisonment for 10 years; this too was against the command of law

Impugned judgment passed by Trial Court in perfunctory and slipshod manner and it was violative of mandatory provisions of S.367(2), Cr.P.C, which could not be cured under the provision of S.537 Cr.P.C

Consequently, appeal was allowed and cases were remanded to the Trial Court for re-writing of the judgment.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused hit the cousin of complainant with a motorcycle, due to which he died at the spot

Accused was charged under Ss.322, 147, 149, P.P.C., but while drawing the judgment impugned, the accused was convicted under Ss.322, 337-A (i) & 337-F (i), P.P.C., which demonstrated that the Trial Court had travelled beyond the charge

In the present case, the accused or co-accused were neither driving the motorcycled which collided with the deceased, causing his death nor inflicted injuries to injured witness, therefore, the accused in no way could be held guilty of doing an unlawful act, culminating into death of deceased and causing injuries to injured witness

Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mutalahimah, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Contents of judgment

Scope

Accused were awarded life imprisonment for committing murder of the deceased

Complainant filed application for the enhancement of punishment

Normal sentence for qatl-i-amd as ta'zir was death

Court, however, had discretion to award lesser sentence of life imprisonment in case there were mitigating circumstances

Record showed that the Trial Court had lucidly and elaborately dealt with all the issues and on the various aspects of the prosecution case had gone on to hold that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt by placing reliance on the ocular account, medical evidence, recovery as well as motive

However, while recording conviction and awarding sentence Trial Court had in just one sentence opted for lesser sentence on the basis of mitigating circumstances in the case without dilating the facts as to the referred circumstances

Judgment in such state of affairs was naturally violative of S. 367(5), Cr.P.C., as well as the law propounded by the Superior Courts of the country on the option of the Court to award lesser sentence under S.302(b), P.P.C

Notice was issued to the respondents accordingly.

Section 391 of the Penal Code, 1860 (the Code) describes the number of accused persons committing the offence of a robbery conjointly committed by five or more persons, however, S. 396 of the Code provides punishment to the accused involving the offence of robbery committed conjointly by five or more persons

So far as, present case was concerned only three persons had been booked for the offence of committing robbery with murder which did not fall within the category of dacoity with murder as per S. 396 of the Code whose requirement of number of accused was five or more

Trial Court while awarding alternative sentence was required to take into consideration the mandatory provisions of law as required under S. 367 of Cr.P.C.

Trial Court was obliged to state the reasons in its judgment as to why death sentence was not passed as required by subsection (5) of S. 367 of Cr.P.C.

Appeal was allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for re-writing of judgment by taking into consideration the mandatory provisions contained in S. 367, Cr.P.C.

Appellate Court, being a final court on facts, has to reappraise the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties issue-wise, and to record its independent findings on the question of facts and law raised by the parties.

Judgment of the Appellate Court must therefore reflect that its findings are supported by reasoning on all the points for determination

Merely agreeing with the findings recorded by the Trial Court shows that the Appellate Court has not recorded its own independent findings.

In the present case, Trial Court had held that prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons at the trial, but accused had been convicted under S. 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced only for committing qatl-i-amd of one deceased and other accused had been convicted under S. 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced for committing qatl-i-amd of other deceased

No finding as to the sharing of common object by the accused persons along with co-accused in the commission of offence had been recorded by the Trial Court

Though as per prosecution case accused along with co-accused (proclaimed offender) fired upon one deceased resulting in his death and other accused along with co-accused (proclaimed offender) fired at other deceased committing his qatl-i-amd

According to the prosecution evidence also, all the five accused in prosecution of the common object committed qatl-i-amd of both deceased persons, but Trial Court had failed to record separate findings regarding both deceased that each accused acted in prosecution of common object

Once it was established that each accused acted in prosecution of the common object or knew the ultimate object, then it would be immaterial whether each accused played a role or not

Thus, it was clear from the impugned judgment that it was passed by the Trial Court ignoring the principle of the common object regarding both murders

Moreso, it was the duty of the Trial Court to ascertain the aspect of the common intention or common object at the time of conclusion of the trial when charge was specifically framed under S. 302(b) rend with S. 149, P.P.C

Finding of the Trial Court showed that Ss. 148, 149, P.P.C. were also proved, but no finding with regard to the Ss. 148, 149, P.P.C., for double murders was recorded by the Trial Court

Thus, the mandatory provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C. had not been followed by Trial Court

Case was remanded to the Trial Court for re-writing of the judgment, in circumstances.

Where the appellate court does not reverse the findings of the Trial Court, a decision on each issue may not be distinctly recorded as long as the provision of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. is complied with in substance.

It is substantial compliance of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C., if the finding on a question of fact has been arrived on proper and legal evidence.

Petitioner was convicted under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for trafficking heroin as well as opium and sentenced by the Trial Court

Application of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, was mandatory for trials and appeals before the Special Court/Trial Court which envisaged mode of delivering the judgment, language of judgment and contents of judgment

Impugned judgment was not legally sustainable, as the failure of the Trial Court to specify the points for determination as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, was an omission and absence of decision on the said points and want of reasons in the judgment amounted to an illegality which prejudiced the case of the appellant

Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside

Case was remanded for re-writing of the judgment afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law on the subject

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Appellants challenged order passed by Trial Court whereby they were acquitted but were ordered to restore possession of complainant's share

Section 8 read with subsections (2) and (3) of S. 3 revealed that the Court in case of conviction of the accused could pass the order for restoration of the property but in the present case the Trial Court, after recording evidence, acquitted the accused on the one hand and on the other hand ordered for restoration of possession of the land to the complainant

Conviction was sine qua non for handing over the possession under S. 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Findings of the Trial Court were not in consonance with the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as well as S. 367, Cr.P.C., requiring the Court to give specific findings for determination of a criminal controversy

Judgment of the Trial Court, being illegal, was liable to be set aside

Appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the Trial Court to pass an appropriate judgment.

Judgment is the decision of a Court regarding the rights and liabilities of the parties in a legal action or proceedings

Such is an official proclamation by a Judge that defines the legal relationships between the parties to a hearing, a trial, an appeal or other Court proceedings.

Judgment should be transparent like clean water so that people can understand it without any doubt and probabilities.

Features of a good judgment, detailed.

Matter was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to adhere the mandatory provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C. and conclude the proceedings after providing fair opportunity of addressing arguments to all the parties

Trial Court on a mere cursory view of record and a look at accused concluded that the accused was a teen-ager and charge did not commensurate with the facts of case and ordered for de novo trial

Validity

Record showed that the Presiding Officer was bent upon to intentionally linger on the proceedings on one or the other pretext

First attempt was to get the accused declared juvenile by a Medical Board and thereby started a de novo trial; second effort was made by altering the charge without adhering to respective provisions of Cr.P.C.; thirdly, to create a jurisdictional dispute, the Trial Court found the argument of defence counsel reasonable i.e. expressed his opinion that by altering the charge forum of appeal was changed

Trial Court by ignoring the command of the order of Appellate Court, adopted a unique course, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction, transgressed legal limits, flouted the order and thus, left no stone unturned to get the proceedings lingered on by increasing the miseries, difficulties and problems of an under-trial prisoner

Revision petition was allowed with direction to Sessions Judge to hear the matter himself or transfer the same to any Court of competent jurisdiction.

Requirement of O.XX, R.5, C.P.C. and O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C., is that the court shall attend to the points raised, record its findings with reasons on all the questions raised and that the judgment shall reflect judicial application of mind to the material issues involved.

Appellants were distinctly and separately charged under Ss.148 & 149, P.P.C. but contrary to the express and mandatory provisions of S.367, Cr.P.C., Trial Court had failed to even advert to such charge while passing the judgment, thus creating scope for remanding the case for decision afresh

Appeal was accepted, impugned judgment was set aside as well as conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants and the case was remanded to the trial court for decision afresh regarding guilt or innocence of the appellants under Ss. 148 & 149, P.P.C.

Section 367, Cr.P.C. envisages that the court while delivering its verdict shall specifically express the offence and the section of the Penal Law, under which the accused is convicted and sentenced

Even in case of acquittal, the judgment shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted of and a direction shall be issued that the accused be set at liberty if under custody and not required in any other case and in case of being on bail, his bail bonds shall be ordered to be discharged forthwith.

Judgment of acquittal of an accused, previously accused of commission of some offence, passed while complying with the mandatory provisions of S.367, Cr.P.C, should be deemed as a proof of a clean chit of innocence of that person

Each person has a right to enjoy the life in a dignified manner and free of any stigma

Judgment of acquittal passed in violation of mandatory provisions of S.367, Cr.P.C. may cause prejudice to the exercise of statutory right of acquitted accused, in case of his malicious prosecution, to claim damages.

Provisions of S.367, Cr.P.C., are mandatory, non-compliance whereof is an illegality, neither curable under S.537, Cr.P.C. nor rectifiable under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.

Prosecution case was that the accused respondents received expenses for performing Hajj from the complainant at Rs.1,70,000 per head, for seven persons

Respondents had not deposited any amount in the concerned Hajj office and had committed fraud

Accused/respondents used forged documents as genuine and committed breach of trust

Record showed that the Trial Court had reproduced only cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and there was no mention of examination-in-chief of any of the witnesses

High Court observed that court had to focus on the allegations and the other evidence produced by the prosecution including examination-in-chief of witnesses

Mere cross-examination would not be considered as evaluation of the evidence or a proper assessment of the evidence led by the parties

Evidence was both the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination and even re-examination, if any

Impugned order appeared to be devoid of reasoning for accepting or rejecting the evidence of prosecution

Circumstances established that the incriminating material and major part of prosecution evidence had not been properly examined by the Trial Court

Impugned judgment was not in accordance with S. 367, Cr.P.C, therefore, the same was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to record statement of all the accused afresh strictly in accordance with the requirement of S. 342, Cr.P.C. and decide the case after hearing the parties.

Prosecution case was that the culprits duly armed with firearm weapons snatched cellular phones and an amount of Rs.4,000/- from witness; during scuffle with one of dacoits, father of complainant had succumbed to bullet injury of .30 bore pistol at the spot

Record showed that the Trial Court in non-compliance of mandatory provisions of subsections (2), (3) and (5) of S. 367, Cr.P.C., had not drawn the point/points for determination and findings with reasons for the decision in the impugned judgment nor the offence for which the accused/appellant was sentenced had been mentioned

Sufficient reasons or plausible mitigating circumstances for awarding lesser punishment of imprisonment of life had not been specified

Provision of S.367, Cr.P.C. was mandatory and intended to constitute a substance as distinguished from mere form of judgment

Circumstances suggested that mandatory provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C. had not been followed in deciding the case

Having not been delivered in the light of S.367, Cr.P.C., impugned judgment was not sustainable in law and was liable to be set aside

Resultantly, the case was remanded back to the Trial Court for re-writing the judgment strictly on merits.

Conviction and acquittal must always be specific with reference to offence because it is never crime number/FIR for which one is tried but offence(s) which accused is claimed to be guilty

Legally every offence has its own ingredients (allegation) as well as consequences thereof

Either charged accused is to be acquitted of every single charged offence else it has to be within competence of court(s) to convict accused for any offence regardless of his acquittal from some of charged offences

Law permits conviction for offence not specifically charged but found proved

Mandatory requirement of a valid judgment (within meaning of section 367 Cr.P.C.) is that acquittal must be with reference to offences while conviction must not only be with reference to offence but must specify section thereof.

Trial Court awarded one death penalty for two separate offences under S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and S. 302, P.P.C.

Validity

Held, Trial Court should have given separate conviction and sentence in respect of each offence charged

One death penalty had been awarded for offences under S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and S. 302, P.P.C. and as such was a defect in the judgment and violation of S. 367, Cr.P.C.

Separate charge for each offence had also not been framed as required by law, however, since failure to do so based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case did not cause any prejudice to the appellant, therefore, case was not remanded to Trial Court for reframing of the charge and re-recording of evidence

High Court set aside the judgment and directed the Trial Court to write a fresh judgment

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous hurt, slavery, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed arms

Appreciation of evidence

Contents of judgment

Case had not been decided in accordance with the mandatory provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C.

Effect

Prosecution and defence jointly pointed out that in the present case, post-mortem of the deceased was not conducted during investigation, but Trial Court in his judgment discussed post-mortem report of some other deceased

Prosecution had further pointed out that Trial Court had mentioned in the judgment that bloodstained helmet of deceased was secured from the place of incident, which was not the case of prosecution

Clarification was called from the Trial Court, which was filed

Trial Court had mentioned in the comments that name of deceased and word helmet had erroneously been entered

Record reflected that accused persons along with absconding accused kidnapped the deceased outside of his house with intention to commit his qatl-i-amd

Later on his dead body was found outside of his house

Section 367, Cr.P.C. provided that a judgment should contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision but the impugned judgment had been passed in a perfunctory and slipshod manner

Trial Court did not apply judicial mind while passing the judgment

Errors/omissions committed by the Trial Court were not curable under the law

Circumstances established that impugned judgment delivered by the Trial Court was violative of the statutory provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C., therefore, was not sustainable

Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and case was remanded for re-writing the judgment after hearing the parties.

Prosecution case was based on different pieces of evidence but material piece of evidence such as identification parade was not put to the accused persons at the time of recording their statements under S. 342, Cr.P.C. so as to provide them an opportunity to explain

Such illegality was not curable under the law

Trial Court had failed to specify the offences and sentences separately

Provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C. were mandatory in nature

High Court set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court and remanded the case back for re-recording the statements of accused persons under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Prosecution case was that the accused party while armed with deadly weapons assaulted on the complainant party, made firing, resulting in the death of two persons while the complainant and prosecution witnesses escaped unhurt

After submission of challan, Trial Court framed formal charge against the accused persons under Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149, P.P.C., to which accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial

Prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and closed its evidence

Statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.; accused persons though, denied allegations of the prosecution against them, but declined to either be examined on oath or produce defence evidence

Accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, without giving any findings in respect of charge against them under S. 148, P.P.C. which was a legal infirmity

Effect

Impugned judgment failed to meet the mandatory requirements of S. 367, Cr.P.C. owing to omission on the part of the Trial Court to record findings on the charge under S. 148, P.P.C.

Record transpired that accused-appellants were distinctly and separately charged under S. 148, P.P.C. for "rioting" while armed with deadly weapons, carrying the penalty of imprisonment up-to three years or with fine or both

Trial Court in contrary to the mandatory provision of S. 367, P.P.C., failed to even advert to the said charge, which created scope for remand of the case for rewriting the judgment

High Court observed that Trial Courts were to exercise extra care and caution and take cognizance of all relevant facts and legal provisions applicable to the case while deciding specially matters involving capital punishment

Appeal was partly accepted by setting aside the conviction and sentences awarded to accused persons and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh/re-writing of judgment after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

Defence plea was that judgment delivered by the Trial Court was in violation of S. 367 Cr.P.C. as Trial Court had not evaluated the statement of complainant in judgment nor it was put to the accused during recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Effect

Record showed that while recording statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C., no specific question was put with respect to the transposition of statement of complainant recorded during earlier trial

No finding had been given on the statement of complainant

Evidence of the complainant had not been properly appreciated and discussed with other circumstances of the case

Trial Court was under legal obligation to have discussed each and every point, involved in the case, with reference to evidence produced by prosecution including the statement of complainant

Circumstances established that judgment delivered by Trial Court was violative of the statutory provisions of S. 367 Cr.P.C., therefore, was not sustainable

Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment was set aside and case was remanded for re-examination of evidence.

Section 367(5), Cr.P.C. was placed in Chap. XXVI of Part VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Part VI of the said Code pertained only to 'Proceedings in Prosecutions' before a Trial Court

Matters pertaining to the appellate and revisional courts were provided for in Part VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and said Part of the Code did not contain any provision akin or similar to that S.367(5), Cr.P.C., thus, the requirements of S.367(5), Cr.P.C. were relevant only to a Trial Court and they had no application to an appellate or revisional court

When an appellate or revisional court was considering a question of propriety or otherwise of a sentence passed against a convict the provisions of S.367(5), Cr.P.C. could not be pressed into service before it.

Suit was dismissed by Trial Court and Appellate Court below, but on second appeal, High Court remanded case to Appellate Court for decision afresh

Validity

Provisions of R.31 of O.XLI, C.P.C., relating to contents of judgment of Appellate Court, were mandatory

First Appellate Court was also a court of facts, and it was enjoined upon the said court to decide each and every issue after discussing the evidence

If decision of appeal was possible after recording the finding on one or more issues, then it was not necessary to record finding of all the issues

In the present case Appellate Court below had not recorded findings issue-wise, but only resolved the question of limitation and question as to whether suit was hit by O.II, R.2, C.P.C., was not resolved

No issue was framed whether the suit was hit by O.II, R.2, C.P.C.

Appellate Court below delivered the judgment in a telegraphic manner without discussing the facts or evidence on record

Appellate Court was obliged to record findings on each and every issue when the decision on the basis of findings on one issue was not possible

Two issues were crucial in the suit and without deciding said issues, appeal could not be decided

High Court, in circumstances, had correctly remanded the case to Appellate Court below for resolving of issues.

While writing the judgment it was incumbent upon the court to ponder over all possible situations and probabilities for reaching a just and proper conclusion and it could not act like resolving a mathematical proposition

Judgment should contain points for determination and should specify the offence and the section of law under which the accused was convicted and the punishment to which he was sentenced.

Trial Court acquitted the accused persons but simultaneously convicted the appellant on the ground that he misused his official powers and lodged a false complaint/F.I.R.

Contentions of the appellant were that he was not allowed any opportunity of defence

Validity

No charge was framed against the appellant for lodging a false complaint and he was convicted without providing him any chance of defence

Section 367, Cr.P.C provided that a judgment should contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision

Section 367(2), Cr.P.C, provided that the judgment should specify the offence and the section of the Penal Code or other law under which the accused was convicted and the punishment to which he was sentenced-In the present case, impugned judgment neither mentioned the section of law under which the appellant was convicted nor any charge was framed against him

No statement of appellant was recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C

Impugned judgment was passed in a perfunctory and slipshod manner which was not only perverse but also perpetuated the failure of justice

Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment to the extent of the conviction of the appellant was set aside and he was acquitted.