BASANT RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a prolix and repetitive judgment spanning 47 pages, the learned Trial Judge has returned a verdict of guilt against the appellant and has convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC. Not only is the decision prolix and repetitive, but points of consideration which arose with respect to the evidence led have not even been discussed. Further, the cursory manner in which the evidence led has been noted has compelled us to paraphrase the instant decision for guidance of the learned Trial Judges that given the situation in which we all Judges find ourselves i.e. hard pressed for time, it is desirable that the Courts of Original Trial pen decisions as briefly as possible without compromising on noting the evidence led and after highlighting the issues, discuss the principles of law applicable with reference to precedents if any and straightaway proceed to give reasons for their decision. If on the same point 20 judgments are cited, it is enough to cite the principle of law and simply record that it was so held in the decisions cited. It is useless wastage of paper to reproduce 20 different paragraphs from 20 different decisions; all holding to the same.

(2.) We highlight one issue which arose for consideration before the learned Trial Judge, which has been most conveniently (unfortunately) circumvented by the learned Trial Judge. The said issue was as to what is the effect of incriminating evidence in the form of blood of the same group of the deceased being lifted from different places inside a room when the prosecution has not been able to prove that the said room was in the exclusive possession of the accused. Needless to state, the other issue was to the credibility of the testimony of the father of the deceased on the issue of last seen evidence as also to the credibility of the witnesses who proved the recoveries at the instance of the appellant. Obviously, said issue relates to appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses.

(3.) We shall be dealing with the said two issues, but before noting the relevant evidence giving birth to the said two issues as also other relevant evidence, we propose to pen a few lines for the benefit of the learned Trial Judges as to the desirability of the manner in which reports by serologists have to be reflected in the decision.