SURENDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE impugned judgment and order dated 26. 2. 2001, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant for having committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC, for which offence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, in respect whereof he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine in sum of rs. 2,000/ -. Both sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) TO say the least, the impugned judgment has been written in a most unsatisfactory manner, a fact conceded by both counsel. It gives us little clue as to what evidence has been treated as admissible evidence and what circumstances have been used by the learned Trial Judge to convict the appellant.

(3.) BY way of illustration we may note that the case of the prosecution stated by the learned Trial Judge, in para 16 of the impugned decision, the learned trial Judge has recorded as follows:-