LexMUKHTIAR SINGH AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. JANUARY 4, 1995 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Section 354(1)(b}-Judgment of trial court acquitting some accused and convicting others--Whether sus- tainable-Held, decision does not merely mean conclusion but also reasons C which f onn basis for arriving at conclusion-Judgment should enable appel- late court to know basis of decision-Judgment of trial court containing only conclusions, held, cannot be sustained-Case remanded to trial court for dis- posal on meritS-Criminal triaf-Penal Code Ss. 148, 302/149, 120B, 397, 46~Anns Act 1950, S.25-Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act D 1984, s. 14 Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act 1984-S.14-Judgment of trial court found infinn, and set aside-Whether case to be remanded to trial court or detennination of guilt to be undertaken by appellate court-Held, first appeal being to Supreme Court, analysing evidence and detennining guilt by E this court would deprive concerned party of right of appeaf-Despite occur- rence having taken place over a decade ago, case remanded to trial court for disposal on merits-criminal triaf-Penal Code Ss.148, 3021149, 120B, 397, 46~Anns Act 1950, S. 25 Eleven accused person were tried for offences'under Ss.148, 302/149, F 120B, 397, 460 IPC and S.25 of the Arms Act 1950. The Special Court, Ferozepur, which was the trial court in this case, convicted some of the accused while acquitting others. Appeals were filed under the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act 1984 challenging conviction and ac- quittals; Remanding the case to the trial court, this Court G HELD : 1. The judgment of the trial court is infirm. The trial court appears to be blissfully ignorant of the requirements of S.354(1) (b) Cr.PC. The trial court was dealing with a case of murder. The cryptic judgment of the trial court does not disclose the reasons for its decision. On the plainest requirement of justice and fair trial, the trial court was expected H to notice, consider and discuss, howsoever briefly, the evidence of various 38 _-( -· •,· MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE [DR.1™AND, J.] 39 witnesses and the arguments addressed at the bar. The trial court has not A ~ done so. A 'decision' does not merely mean the 'conclusion' • it embraces within its fold the reasons which form the basis for arriving at the 'conclusion'. The judgment of the trial court contains only the 'conclusions' and nothing more. [45-B-C] 2. The exercise of analysing the evidence and determining the guilt B or otherwise of the accused could have been undertaken by this Court, " particularly considering that the occurrence took place over a decade ago and the conviction was recorded almost nine years ago, but this may prejudice one or the other party as it would deprive the concerned party of its right of first appeal to this Court. The case is, therefore, remanded c to the trial court for fresh disposal on merits. [ 45-E-F] 3. The accused shall continue to remain on bail, and shall remain present before the trial court during the hearing of the case. The absence of.either of the respondents in the trial court shall result in the cancella- ;,. - tion of his/their bail and he/they shall be taken into custody till the D conclusion of the hearing by the trial court. [46-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1985 etc .. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.85 of the Special Court, E Ferozepur in Sessions Cases No. 239 of 1984 and Trial No. 70 of 1985. R.S. Sodhi and R.C. Kohli for the Appellants. Mrs. Arnita Gupta and R.S. Suri for the Respondents. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ANAND, J. These two appeals under Section 14 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Court) Act, 1984 arise out of a common judgment of the Special Court, Ferozepur dated 19.4.1985. While Criminal Appeal G No. 434 of 1985 has been filed by Mukhtiar Singh and Jasbir Singh l'i challenging their conviction and sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1985 has been filed by the complainant, Sohan· Lal, and is directed against the • acquittal of the acquitted co-accused of Mukhtiar Singh . 11 accused persons were put up for trial before the learned Judge of H 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R. A the Special Court, Ferozepur for offences under section 148, 302/149, 120-B, 397, 460 IPC and Section 25 of the A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.