STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND PARSHURAM LAXMAN CHALKE Vs. PARSHURAM LAXMAN CHALKE AND STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brevity is no doubt the laudible virtue of a judgment. However, that such a frame must contain within the necessary requirements of law is equally essential. Such details must reflect the blend of several items such as reading, analysing, appreciating and ultimately marshalling the evidence so as to entail into certain findings which in turn must be supported by reasons being in consonance with the evidence on record. Such a necessity is apparent so as to exhibit application of mind and also to assist the higher forum to understand the line of reasoning so adopted. Even erroneous findings and conclusion are required to be supplemented by adequate reasons. Some times it is not difficult to unmask the deceptively ostensible appearance of credibility form the items of evidence. More serious and brutal is the crime, more onerous obligation is cast on the Court to apply its mind carefully and cautiously and examine all the pros and cons about the entire material unfolded at the trial and this necessity becomes more prominent on the forefront when the offence is likely to be visited with the extreme penalty prescribed under law. Active and effective participation of the Presiding Judge in the proceeding also involves the process of properly assessing and examining all the items of evidence even when some shades of the material might have been missed by the parties. Dealing with a case entirely resting on circumstantial evidence requires thorough exercise. An anxiety and disturbing feeling on realisation that the perpetration of a brutal and heinous crime would go unpunished can well be understood. However, merely on that score, the requirement of law under the system of criminal jurisprudence vis-a-vis the standard of proof, the quality of acceptable evidence cannot be sacrificed so as to convert otherwise an utterly unacceptable and wholly inadequate evidence into the foundation of conviction.

(2.) Arithmetically speaking, the impugned judgment at hand runs into about eight printed pages. Out of those, about two pages are devoted in narrating the prosecution case while the topic of reasoning starts thereafter, though the said label is obviously misconceived and almost a misnomer since the utter and eloquent absence of reason is the characteristic of the judgment. Even in that category about one and half pages are consumed by such items in respect of which there was hardly any controversy. It is thereafter that the real aspect about the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime in question is discussed hardly within two pages, which quite surprisingly refers only to the gist of the prosecution case and the evidence in chief and that too in the most cryptic manner, whereas the rest portion of about two and half pages is directed to the quantum of sentence in which category there could hardly be any difficulty. The judgment, therefore, no doubt very much adheres to the concept of brevity, but blissfully misses the contents within. With respect, the impugned judgment therefore, is extremely vulnerable in all respects. All this is de hors of the conclusion and its validity or otherwise reached by the learned trial Judge. The net result is that there will occur reversing of position in that the judgment on this forum will have to be in details like the one required to be recorded by the trial Court whereas the judgment of the Court of the first instance tends to be on par with an appellate or revisional judgment where the findings of the trial Court are being endorsed.

(3.) These are some of the thoughts that occurred during the course of this proceeding and which linger even after the termination of the proceeding.