BRIJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and on browsing through the evidence led and having perused the impugned decision dated 22.10.2009, we find that as many as 5 definite areas of consideration, in respect whereof determinative finding had to be rendered by the learned Trial Judge have emerged.

(2.) Needless to state, at the end of a criminal trial, it is duty of the learned Judge to distinctly identify the areas of dispute and render a determinative finding on each one of them. This enables the Appellate Court to have a focused look at the impugned decision and thereafter reflect upon the same.

(3.) We are noticing a most unfortunate trend of extremely prolix decisions being penned by learned Trial Judges. The result is a total non focused approach. As would be highlighted in this case, one issue which arose has not even been noted. Another has been noted but not answered. Qua the third, a most inconclusive finding has been rendered. Only two issues have been determinatively dealt with.