MAHARAJ SINGH AND OTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants were prosecuted under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 and 325/149 I. P. C. The trial court convicted them. They appealed against that decision to the Sessions Judge of Mathura. He refused to interfere with their conviction and sentences. So they have come to this Court in revision.

(2.) THE ground which forms the basis of this revision is that the learned Sessions Judge has not written a proper judgment in appeal. This ground appears to me to be well founded, and is sufficient to invalidate the judgment. What the learned Sessions Judge seems to have done is that he narrated the prosecution and the defence story, and then he said that from a perusal of the evidence and the prosecution witnesses a case was made out. As has been pointed out by this Court in Maharaja Bux and others v. State, 1950 A.L. J. 669 the judgment must contain the points for determination, the findings on them and the reasons for the findings; otherwise it is no judgment in law. The learned Sessions Judge should have, therefore, addressed himself on the points for decision in the appeal and should have given reasons for his decision. Where the evidence is clear and one -sided, and there is little dispute about it, it may not be necessary for a court to deal with that evidence in detail, and the court may rest content with saying that it has given due consideration to it. But the present case was certainly not such a case. Here there were two versions put by the two parties; there was contradictory evidence; and the evidence for prosecution called for scrutiny. Moreover the learned Sessions Judge had to deal with cases of a number of men. He had to deal with them individually and consider what part was played by each of them. He has not dealt with them individually. He has not given any thought to the question whether there is any accused who did not participate in the riot at all. A Superior Court is entitled to assistance of the inferior court in coming to a decision. If the inferior court in coming to a decision has given no grounds for its decision, it gives absolutely no assistance to the Superior Court. The giving of reasons for its decision by a court of particular importance when there is no further appeal on facts. In the present case the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is final. In revision this Court will not interfere with findings of fact save in exceptional cases, which may be ignored. But when the lower appellate court has not given reasons for his findings of fact, it is not possible for this Court to adhere to this rule.