Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad comprising Justice SG Mehare recently remitted back a case to the magistrate who had not given proper reasons while passing the judgment. Court said that the reasons of the judgment are its soul and heart.

“It is a rule of writing judgment that the evidence as a whole available on the record shall be appreciated, and on the basis of the evidence, the Judge writing a judgment has to record the conclusions with reasons. The reasons are rational explanations for the conclusion. It is a process by which one reaches a conclusion. The reasons are the soul and heart of the judgment. The Judge writing a judgment has to examine the evidence minutely. The judgment should be confined to the facts of the case and the issues involved,” the bench observed.

The judge while remitting back the case to the magistrate and setting aside the order said that the judgment of acquittal was passed without reason and appreciating the evidence.

“The Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is without reasons, appreciating the evidence and ignoring the direct evidence. The soul and heart of the judgment are missing in the impugned judgment. The order impugned before this Court is bad in law and full of errors, illegalities and improprieties. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed and set aside,” the order noted.

The high court was hearing a revision plea filed by the complainant, in which the accused was charged under Sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance, the magistrate had framed charges, and the accused had faced trial.

The counsel representing the complainant argued that the magistrate had not provided any reason for discarding the testimony of the injured witnesses despite their statements being supported by medical evidence. The direct evidence had been dismissed without any consideration, leaving the judgment without any basis, he stated.

The counsel opined that such a verdict was akin to a lifeless body without a heart and thus should be quashed and set aside.

On the other hand, the counsel for the accused contended that the non-examination of the investigating officer had seriously impacted the accused's right to establish any omissions or contradictions. Additionally, he argued that the mere presence of enmity between the parties had created reasonable doubt in the case, which should be considered to benefit the accused. As a result, he urged the court to dismiss the revision plea.

The high court in its order recorded that under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the high court has no power to convert the findings of acquittal into conviction and that’s why it remitted back the case to the magistrate.

“Subsection 3 of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. provides that nothing under Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. In other words, exercising the powers under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. in case of a revision against acquittal, the High Court has no power to convert the findings of acquittal into conviction. In view of this provision of law, the sole remedy lies with the High Court is to remit the case back, directing the learned Magistrate to rewrite the judgment after giving an opportunity to the respective counsels,” the order noted.

Case Title: Baki Abdulgani Patel vs State of Maharashtra & Ors