SATYAWAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset we must record our anguish at the clumsy judgment written by the learned Trial Judge which is challenged before us. Without any discussion or appreciation of the evidence; after simply noting the evidence on record, a cryptic finding has been returned that the prosecution has successfully proved its case.

(2.) FOUR accused i. e. the appellants were sent for trial pertaining to FIR no. 218/1987 PS Adarsh Nagar, under Section 302/386/363/364/120-B IPC. While penning the judgment, ignoring the fact that there are four accused and the law that where there are more than one accused, incriminating evidence held established against each accused needs to be succinctly stated, we find that the learned Trial Judge has not done so.

(3.) WE get no clue for any reasons from the impugned decision, and therefore, we are unable to follow the conventional route to be followed in appeals, requiring the Appellate Court to state as to what reasons have been recorded by the learned Trial Judge, and if the Appellate Court were to disagree with the said reasons, to bring out the point of disagreement and thereafter give reasons in support of the conclusions reached by the Appellate Court.