Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 515 of 1967, heard on 24th October, 1979.

--‑‑ S. 367 read with S. 424‑Judgment‑Every judgment must contain inter alia points for determination, decision thereon and reasons for decision‑Judgment merely stating few facts and containing no statement of reasons in support of findings, held. invalid‑Appellate Court, held further, empowered to dispose of appeal summarily and its judgment also to fulfil requirements of S. 367, Cr. P. C.‑[Judgment].

--‑‑ Ss. 367 & 424 read with S. 439‑Revision (criminal)‑Judgment‑Appellate Court to consider matter independently for decision both on sufficiency of evidence to warrant a conviction and on its reliability‑Merely setting down conclusions without any reasoning in support hereof ‑Held : Not a proper way of disposing of appeals.‑[Judgment].

Sona :itia v. State P L D 1958 Dacca 572 ; Abdul Sattar Molla v. State P L D 1963 Dacca 251 and Tahir v. State 1968 P Cr. L J 465 ref.

--- ‑ S. 439‑Revision (criminal)‑Revision application coming up for hearing after more than 12 years‑Remand of case declined and High Court itself proceeded to determine question of propriety or otherwise of finding of guilty against accused, in circumstance. [Remand of case].

Sona Mia v. State P L D 1958 Dacca 572 ref.

Mirza Naseer Ahmad for Petitioners.

Shahid Maqsood for A.‑G. (Punjab) for the State.

Date of hearing : 24th October, 1979.

Muhammad Yaqoob was charged for the offence under section 13, The West Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 with the allegation that an unlicensed pistol of ‑ 12 calibre and three live cartridges (Exhs. P. I to P. 4) were recovered from his possession and sent up for trial before learned Resident Magistrate, Narowal, District Sialkot. The accused was held guilty with award of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appeal filed by the accused to challenge his conviction and sentence was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge. The accused has come up in revision under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code to assail decisions of two Courts below.

The petition was admitted to hearing for consideration of the point that the judgment of learned lower appellate Court did not satisfy requirements of section 367, Criminal Procedure Code and that documentary evidence on the side of defence was skipped over by both Courts below.

2. Counsel for both sides have been heard. The contention that the judgment of learned Sessions Judge could hardly be called judgment and the appeal could not be deemed to have been disposed of is indefeasible. The first two paragraphs of the judgment of learned Sessions Judge are devoted to a condensed account of facts and reproduction of narration of salient features of the prosecution case by learned trial Magistrate in para. 2 of his judgment. The next paragraph (3) recites that the accused did not plead guilty to the charge alleging false implication in the case due to enmity with the police. Learned Sessions Judge had then observed in the next paragraph without any discussion whatever of evidence examined at the trial that cross‑examination of prosecution witnesses did not bring out any concrete facts and circumstances which could lead to the inference that they had deliberately given false evidence against an innocent person. The accused had not put forth a counter ‑ version of facts in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. These observations are followed upon by the conclusion : "I am left with no option but to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant". No reference whatever was made to the statements of witnesses on either side, particularly the evidence in defence as if it did not even exist on the file. Section 367 requires in unmistakable terms that every judgment must contain among other things the point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. A judgment which states merely a few facts and contains no statement of reasons in support of the findings in the case is insufficient r and invalid. The weight of evidence cannot be determined by arbitrary rules. The judgment should, therefore, be self‑contained and should show that the Court had considered the evidence and had found in case of conviction that the facts proved to the satisfaction of the Court through an offence home to the accused person and the judgment must be reasonably lucid. Under section 424, Cr. P. C. the rules contained in Chapter XXVI relating to judgments of criminal Court of original jurisdiction apply to the judgments of the appellate Courts other than the High Court. The appellate Court has, therefore, no power to dispose of the appeal summarily and its judgment must also fulfil the requirements of section 367, Cr. P. C. i.e. that it must contain point or points for determination raised in the memorandum of appeal, the decision thereon and the reasons for that decision. A judgment of confirmation must also show that the appellate Court had considered the matter independently for decision both on the sufficiency of evidence to warrant a conviction and on its reliability. Merely, setting down conclusions without any reasoning in support thereof is not a proper way of disposing of appeals Sona Mia v. State (P L D 1958 Dacca 572). If the appellate judgment is not in accordance with law the appeal has to be remitted for rehearing and delivery for of proper judgment. Reference be made to the cases Abdul Sattar Molla v. State (P L D 1963 Dacca 251) and Tahir v. State (1968 P Cr. L J 465). In the first mentioned case it was held that evidence of both parties should be considered side by side by Court of appeal for arriving at the findings in favour of or against prosecution. The judgment of appellate Court in that case which did not touch merits and demerits of the evidence was set aside and the case was sent back for rehearing of the appeal. In the next case which bears a close analogy to the case in hand, conviction of the appellant was affirmed by learned Sessions Judge with the observation. The conviction is based on the correct identification of the prisoner by two of the victims of the crime. The fact that the prisoner objected to the identification only after he was correctly identified and not before is sufficient to show that he has no good defence and the prosecution is genuine." The judgment was set aside with the view that it did not satisfy the‑requirements of section 367, Cr. P. C. and the appeal was sent back to learned Sessions Judge for rehearing of appeal and for disposal by a proper judgment.

3. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded to remand the case for rehearing and decision of the appeal afresh in accordance with law as this revisional application has come up for hearing after more than twelve long years. Learned counsel for the petitioner also concedes that it will be unreasonable to order rehearing of the appeal. I, therefore, proceed to determine the question of propriety or otherwise of finding of guilty against the accused on the basis of evidence examined at the trial, although the course which I am adopting here was not approved in Sona Mia's case referred to above but in that case revisional application was decided within eight months of the judgment of Appellate Court.

The judgment further proceeds on analysis of evidence in the case. The accused was acquitted with the finding that charge was not proved against trim beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt.

Order accordingly

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.