Jagannath Ray vs State of Orissa

S. Acharya, J.—The Petitioner stands convicted under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

The Impugned judgment is criticized on the ground that the same is not in accordance with law as there Is no discussion, independent assessment and/or sifting of the evidence on record in the desired manner. It is submitted that from the impugned judgment it self it is evident that the Court below with out applying its mind to the evidence on record confirmed the conviction of the Petitioner in a mechanical manner. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the above criticism is perfectly justified and correct. The Appellate Court has disposed of the entire case against the Appellant in five paragraphs. In the first paragraph, the different sections under which the Petitioner stands convicted and the sentences passed thereunder have been stated. In the second paragraph, the prosecution case in a nut shall have been stated. In the third paragraph, the defence case and the bare numbers of witnesses examined by the prosecution and the defence have been stated. By the fourth and the only paragraph, the conviction of the Petitioner for the above mentioned four offences has been upheld. There is absolutely no discussion therein relating to the separate offences, of which the Petitioner has been convicted. It is not stated how and on what evidence each of the said offence is substantiated against him. There is no assessment and/or sifting of the evidence on record in order to examine if the finding arrived at by the trial Court or not. The Court below has not bestowed any consideration as to whether the approver�s evidence gets any corroboration from any convincing source. Only a few of the prosecution witnesses are referred to in the impugned judgment merely stating therein a bare synopsis of their evidence or the purpose for which they have been examined. Quite a large number of documents have been exhibited in this case, but, excepting a few, there is no reference to those documents in the impugned judgment. The Court below also does not state that the oral and documentary evidence not referred to by it were either of no importance or of no relevance in this case. No reason has been ascribed for the acceptance of the evidence stated in the impugned judgment.

The trial Court�s order convicting the Petitioner for the aforesaid four offences and sentencing him there under to substantive terms of imprisonment has been confirmed by the Court below in the aforesaid manner on hearing only the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent and none for the Appellant.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K.O. Agarwala�s ease 1969 Crl. Appeal Reporter 297 have laid down as follows:

It is necessary that the judgment of the Appellate Court must contain a critical appraisal of the whole evidence in the case and must give clear reasons for the conclusions arrived at. This is specially important in a case where the facts are complicated and intricate and the evidence is contradictory. The judgment must show that the Appellate Court has applied its mind to all the facts and circumstances of the case from all aspects.

The observations in Bhagat Behuria�s case 1969 C.L.T. 1052 should also be profitably quoted:

No doubt where the Appellate Court agrees with the judgment of the lower Court and dismisses an appeal, it may not be necessary for it to write a long and elaborate judgment. An the same, the judgment of the Appellate Court should be independent and self contained so that it may indicate that the Appellate Court had considered the case in proper way and the High Court in revision may be able to follow it without reference to the trial Court judgment.

The Appellate Court being a Court of fact must independently assess and sift the entire evidence and materials on record in a proper and in the desired manner. It should carefully examine if each of the offences of which the Appellant has been convicted by the trial Court is or is not established against him beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging it a duty in the above direction, it should not in any way be influenced by and obsessed with the findings on which the trial Court convicted the Appellant. Moreover it a judgment should indicate that the appeal was considered and disposed of in a proper and convincing manner. (Observation in this connection in Anam Bout�s case 1968 C.L.T. 1250 may also be seen).

In writing out the judgment in this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all taken care to follow the repeated pronouncement and observations made by the Supreme Court and this Court in this connection. As the Impugned judgment suffers from the above mentioned serious Infirmities and deficiencies, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, the State, has rightly conceded that this is a fit case to be remanded to the Appellate Court for a fresh bearing.

On the above considerations, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Appellate Court for proper disposal of the Petitioner�s appeal in accordance with law and the above observations on notice to both the parties. The appeal be disposed of within three months from the date of the receipt of the records, with intimation of compliance to this Court.

The lower Court records be Bent back to the Court below immediately.

The revision is disposed of accordingly.