Judgement.docx

Page |1

Table of Contents Table of Cases .................................................................... 2 Research Methodology........................................................ 3 Introduction ....................................................................... 4 Meaning of Judgment ......................................................... 4 Basic Components of Judgment ......................................... 5 Pronouncement of Judgment ........................................... 10 Judgment by Metropolitan Magistrate .............................. 14 Judgment in Summary Trials ........................................... 15 No Alteration of Judgment................................................ 17 Bibliography ..................................................................... 18 Books and Statutes: ...................................................... 18 Weblinks........................................................................ 18

Page |2

Table of Cases  Aeltemesh Rein v. State of Maharashtra ..................... 12  Anil Rai v. State of Bihar .......................................... 13  Budhia v. Chhotelal .................................................. 8  Ramhit v. Emperor ................................................... 8  Sandesh v. State of Maharashtra ............................... 10  Sankaran Unni Vasudevan Unni v. Rasheed ................ 16  State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adshul ......... 9  State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi .................... 8  Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. ................................. 13

Page |3

Research Methodology

The purpose of this project is to study the term ‘Judgment’ under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Various topics have been discussed within this project concerning the main issue of the meaning, nature and scope of the term ‘Judgment’. A descriptive research methodology was used for this project. Various statutes and books of renowned authors were looked into for the compilation of the present study. Several websites were looked into for understanding the concept of present study. Moreover various case laws were referred to inorder to clear the law point at the present time. Referring to all the primary and secondary material mentioned above, the present study has been compiled and presented to the concerned.

Page |4

Introduction The main functions of a criminal court are twofold: (1) to decide as to the guilt or innocence of accused person tried before it; and (2) if such person is found guilty of any offence, to determine as to the appropriate punishment or other method of dealing with him. In every trial, irrespective of its nature, the court will have to give a judgment in the case at the conclusion of the trial and that decision is basically referred to as ‘Judgment’. Chapter XXVII of the code of 1973 incorporates within itself the scope and ambit of the term “Judgment” which stretches from S. 353 to 362 of the Code.

Meaning of Judgment The judgment is the final decision of the court, given with reasons, on the questions of the guilt or innocence of the accused person. It includes the court’s decision as to the punishment the guilty person has to suffer, or as to the conditions subject to which the offender is to be released without being punished as such. The word ‘Judgment’ means a judgment of conviction or acquittal, and not an order of the discharge or the dismissal of a complaint. The judgment must be completely written when it is pronounced or explained. The law wisely requires that the reasons for the decision shall accompany the decision and shall not be left to be subsequently inserted or recorded.1

1

Woodroffe Sir John, Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure, 2nd Ed., Vol. 2, Law Publishers (India) Private Limited, Allahabad, 1994, p. 1019

Page |5

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary2, a Judgment is the final reasoned decision of the Court as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Where the accused is found guilty, the judgment must also contain an order requiring the accused to undergo punishment or treatment. Judgment means an expression of opinion of judge arrived at after due consideration of the evidence and the arguments. Section 353-362 incorporated in chapter XXVII of the code of 1973 clearly explains the term ‘Judgment”. Judgment is the final reasoned decision of the Court as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Where the accused is found guilty, the judgment must also contain an

order

requiring

the

accused

to

undergo

punishment

or

treatment. The main features of Judgment are given below:1. Judge has to apply his mind to the case. 2. Judgment needs to show that judge has applied his mind to each and every fact and evidence of the case. 3. Once at conclusion, it is a final decision with respect to conviction or acquittal of the accused. 4. Judgment must contain concise statement of the case, points of determination, decision on these points and reasons for such decisions.

Basic Components of Judgment Basic components of a judgment to be delivered by the competent authority have been incorporated u/s 354 of the code of 1973. It reads as follows:

2

Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.

Page |6

354. Language and contents of judgment. (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, every judgment referred to in section 353, (a) Shall be written in the language of the court; (b) Shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision; (c) Shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or other law under which, the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced; (d) If it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty. (2) When the conviction is under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under which of two parts of the same section, of that Code the offence falls, the court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative. (3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence. (4) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year of more, but the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence, unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the

Page |7

rising of the court or unless the case was tried summarily under the provisions of this Code. (5) When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. (6) Every order under section 117 or sub-section (2) of section 138 and every final order made under section 125, section 145 or section 147 shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.3 1.

According to the above stated section, one of the components

is that the Judgment must be in the language of the court as notified by the state government. Every judgment shall be written in the language of the court.4 S. 272 of the Code states that the language of the court is determined by the State Government. The word “shall” in the above provision indicates that it is mandatory. The provision in Section 364 for the translation of the judgment“where the original is recorded in a language different from that of the court”, would suggest that the judgment need not necessarily be written in language of the court. Under the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, judgments were allowed to be written, and were in fact written in English. Now under the above provision in the new Code though it is obligatory to write judgments in the courtlanguage, the old practice of writing judgments in English almost continues to remain unaffected. 2.

Another component is that every judgment shall contain the

point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.5

3

S. 354, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. S. 354(1)(a), The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5 S. 354(1)(b), The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4

Page |8

According to this component, while giving a judgment, the Court shall decide the points for determination to finally dispose off the proceedings. Court will give clear findings on those points. Court will give reasons for those findings. Reasons can be taken from evidence or from arguments submitted by the parties. Usually the judgment in a criminal case should commence with a statement of facts in respect of which the accused person is charged. The judgment should indicate a careful analysis and appraisement of the evidence while reaching the conclusions regarding the proof of facts.6 It is the bounden duty of the magistrate to produce judgment in a case coming before him which is self-contained and which would show that he has intelligently applied his mind to the facts of the case and the evidence led therein by the respective parties and a criticism of this evidence justifying the conclusion to which the magistrate feels persuaded to come.7 The Supreme Court has also from time to time directed that all orders passed by the courts should be speaking orders giving reasons for the decision after noting the point at issue.8 3.

Moving further S. 354(1)(c) of the Code of 1973 states that

every judgment shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal Code or other law under which, the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced. According to this component, where the accused is convicted, Court will mention the offence for which he is convicted and the law under which offence is punishable, for example Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, etc. When the conviction is under the Indian Penal Code and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under which of two parts of the same section of that Code the 6

Ramhit v. Emperor, 1934(35) Cr.L.J. 919 All Budhia v. Chhotelal, AIR 1966 Raj 122 8 State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, 1984(1) SCC 596 7

Page |9

offence falls, the court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative.9 4.

S. 354(1)(d) of the Code of 1973 states that if it be a

judgment of acquittal, it shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty. When accused is acquitted, then Court shall state the offence of which he is acquitted and shall also state that he be set free for this offence. However, if the judgment of acquittal is given on the ground that the accused was insane at the time at which he is alleged to have committed the offence charged, the accused shall not be set at liberty by the judgment of acquittal. For such cases special provisions have been made in the Code. 5.

According to S. 354(3) of the Code, when conviction is for an

offence punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment, then judgment shall state reasons for that and incase of death sentence, special reasons for such sentence should be given. 6.

According to S. 354(4) of the Code, when any offence is

punishable with imprisonment for one year or more but the Court has

awarded

a

imprisonment

of

less

than

three

months

imprisonment then Court has to record reasons but this rule is not applicable if case is tried summarily or when accused is awarded sentence till the rising of the Court. 7.

According to S. 354(5) of the Code, when a person is

sentenced to death, the judgment shall direct that the person be hanged by neck till death. Doctor will ascertain his death. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adshul10, it was held that legislative intent behind S. 354(3) clearly 9

S. 354(2), The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. AIR 2011 SC

10

P a g e | 10

demonstrates the concern of legislature for taking away of human life and imposing death penalty. Hence the major concern is for dignity of human life. In Sandesh v. State of Maharashtra11, it was held that despite the paradigm shift in criminal jurisprudence, the ingredient relating to criminal as well as circumstances of crime have to be considered by the court at the time of delivery of judgment. The court would have to determine whether accused is an ir-reformable anti social element to the society. Consideration of these aspects should automatically result in recording special reasons u/s 354(3) of the code.

Pronouncement of Judgment The judgment of the trial court represents the final episode in the trial of the accused. The rules made by the Code in respect of the delivery or pronouncement of the judgment are mainly intended to secure certainty in the ascertainment of what the judgment was. Therefore until the judgment is ‘delivered’ or ‘pronounced’ in compliance with such rules, it is strictly speaking no “judgment”, and the judge can at such a stage change his mind and make alterations in the judgment.12 Section 353 which deals with the modes of pronouncing a judgment, reads as follows:

353. Judgment. (1). The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial

11 12

2013 Cr.L.J. SC Kelkar R. V., Criminal Procedure, 5th Ed., Eastern Book Comapany, Lucknow, 2012, p. 618

P a g e | 11

or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. (a) By delivering the whole of the judgment: or (b) By reading out the whole of the judgment: or (c) By reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language, which is understood by the accused or his pleader. (2) Where the judgment is delivered under clause (a) of subsection (I), the presiding officer shall cause it to be taken down in short hand, sign the transcript and every page thereof as soon as it is made ready, and write on it the date of the delivery of the judgment in open Court. (3) Where the judgment or the operative part thereof is read out under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, it shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open court and if it is not written with his own hand, every page of the judgment shall be signed by him. (4) Where the judgment is pronounced in the manner specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), he whole judgment or a copy thereof shall be immediately made available for the perusal of the parties or their pleaders free of cost. (5) If the accused is in custody, he shall be brought up to hear the judgment pronounced. (6) If the accused is not in custody, he shall be required by the court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced, except where his personal attendance during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is one of fine only or he is acquitted:

P a g e | 12

Provided that, where there are more accused than one, and one or more of them do not attend the court on the date on which the judgment is to be pronounced, the presiding officer may, in order to avoid undue delay in the disposal of the case, pronounce the judgment notwithstanding their absence. (7) No judgment delivered by any Criminal Court shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the absence of any party or his pleader on the day or from the place notified for the delivery thereof, or of any omission to serve, or defect in serving, on the parties or their pleaders, or any of them, the notice of such day and place. (8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit in any way the extent of the provisions of section 465.

The expression “after the termination of the trial” in Section 353(1) only means after the entire evidence both on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of the defense is recorded and arguments are heard. It cannot however be said that the trial of a criminal case comes to an end as soon as the evidence is recorded and that the ultimate judgment pronounced in a case forms no part of a trial.13 Where the judgment is pronounced by delivering the whole of it in open court under clause (a) of sub-section (1) above, the presiding officer is required by sub-section (2) to cause it to be taken down in short-hand and to sign the transcript and every page thereof as soon as it is made ready and to write on it the date of the delivery of the judgment in open court. Section 363 requires that where the judgment is appealable by the accused, he is given a certified copy of the judgment free of cost and without delay. But if the supply of copy of the judgment is inordinately delayed because 13

Aeltemesh Rein v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 Cr.L.J. 858 Bom.

P a g e | 13

of the delay in the preparation of the transcript as mentioned in sub section (2), the consequence would inevitably be that the accused would not be able to file an appeal and obtain an order from the appellate court for his release on bail within a reasonable time even though it be a fit case for his release on bail. Secondly another result of the above delay would be that a convicted person who is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a short period would undergo the entire sentence of imprisonment by the time the copy of the judgment is supplied to him. The right of appeal for such a convicted person would be thus rendered illusory though he may have a good arguable case in appeal. This would indicate the necessity

of

speedy

and

expeditious

transcription

when

the

judgment is delivered in open court under clause (a) of sub-section (1). The Supreme Court has rightly disapproved the undesirable practice of some judges delivering judgments after several months since completion of hearing. The court has correctly perceived it to be a violation of the speedy Trial, a right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution as held in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar14. The Court has also issued various guidelines in this particular case to be followed by the Courts in India till Parliament make measures to deal with the problem of delayed delivery of judgment. Where the judgment or the operative part thereof is read out under clause (b) or clause (c)of sub-section (1), it shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open Court. However any other defect or irregularity in such dating and signing can be cured by Section 465. In Surendra Singh v. State of U.P.15, SC observed that small irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or the mode of delivery do not matter but the substance of the thing must 14 15

2001 SCC (Cr) 1009 AIR 1954 SC 194

P a g e | 14

be there; that can neither be blurred nor left to inference and conjecture nor can it be vague All the rest—the manner in which it is to be recorded, the way in which it is to be authenticated, the signing and the sealing, all the rules designed to secure certainty about its content and matter—can be cured; but not the hard core, namely, the formal intimation of the decision and its contents formally declared in a judicial way in open court. Furthermore, it is quite evident from sub-sections (5) and (6) that it is the duty of the trial court to secure the attendance of the accused in court at the time of delivering a judgment of conviction by which the accused is sentenced to a substantive sentence of imprisonment. However, in order to avoid undue delay in the disposal of the case in which there are two or more accused persons the court can pronounce the judgment in the absence of any of the accused persons in the circumstances mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (6).

Judgment by Metropolitan Magistrate Instead of recording the judgments in usual manner provided by S. 354, the judgments given by metropolitan magistrates are required to be recorded in specified abridged forms mentioned u/s 355 of the Code which reads as follows: 355. Metropolitan Magistrate’s Judgment. Instead of recording a judgment in the manner hereinbefore provided, a Metropolitan Magistrate shall record the following particulars, namely. (a) The serial number of the case;

P a g e | 15

(b) The date of the commission of the offence; (c) The name of the complainant (if any); (d) The name of the accused person, and his parentage and residence: (e) The offence complained of or proved, (f) The plea of the accused and his examination (if any) (g) The final order; (h) The date of such order; (i) In all cases in which an appeal lies from the final order either under section 373 or under sub-section (3) of section 374, a brief statement of the reasons for the decision.

S. 373 referred to above in clause (i) deals with appeal from orders requiring security or refusal to accept or rejecting surety for keeping peace or good behaviour and Section 374(3) inter alia deals with appeals by persons convicted on trial held by a metropolitan magistrate. In other words, according to clause (i) above, a metropolitan magistrate is required to give a brief statement of the reasons for his decision in all cases in which an appeal lies.

Judgment in Summary Trials Judgments in summary trials are not required to be recorded in the manner mentioned in S. 354. The record and judgment in summary trials must be in the specified abridged form as provided by S. 263-265 of the Code. According to S. 263, in every case tried

P a g e | 16

summarily, the Magistrate shall enter, in such form as the State Government may direct, the following particulars: (a) The serial number of the case; (b) The date of the commission of the offence; (c) The date of the report of complaint; (d) The name of the complainant (if any); (e) The name, parentage and residence of the accused; (f) The offence complained of and the offence (if any) proved, and in cases coming under clause (ii), clause (iii) or clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 260, the value of the property in respect of which the offence has been committed; (g) The plea of the accused and his examination (if any); (h) The finding; (i) The sentence or other final order; (j) The date on which proceedings terminated.16 According to S. 264, in every case tried summarily in which the accused does not plead guilty, the magistrate shall record the substance of the evidence and a judgment containing a brief statement of the reasons for the finding shall be given. The judgment should be such as to enable a court of appeal or revision to know from its perusal, the nature of the case, the substance of the evidence and the reasons for the finding so that such courts might be in a position to examine the correctness or proprietary or illegality of such finding.17

16 17

S. 263, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sankaran Unni Vasudevan Unni v. Rasheed, 1980 Cr.L.J. 304 Ker.

P a g e | 17

No Alteration of Judgment S. 362 of the code states that no court should alter its judgment once disposed off. It reads as follows:

362. Court not to alter judgment. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall after or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

Section 362 is not restricted to the judgments of the trial court alone. The section is general in its application and prohibits all courts from altering or reviewing their judgment once it had been signed. It has been opined that taking cognizance is a final order for the purposes of Section 362. Finality attaches to a judgment or final order disposed of a case. A judgment or a final order must be clearly distinguished from an interlocutory order. It is obvious that Section 362 only precludes alteration of final judgment and keeps intact the power of a court to pass different orders from stage to stage in so far as an interim matter is concerned. The words “save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force” refer to those provisions only where the court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment.

P a g e | 18

Bibliography Books and Statutes:

 Woodroffe Sir John, Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure, 2nd Ed., Vol. 2, Law Publishers (India) Private Limited, Allahabad, 1994.

 Sen, D. N., The Code of Criminal Procedure, Vol. I, Premier Publishing Company, Allahabad, 2004.

 Batuk Lal, Code of Criminal Procedure, 2nd Ed., Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010.

 Kelkar R. V., Criminal Procedure, 5th Ed., Eastern Book Comapany, Lucknow, 2012.

 Misra S. N., The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 12th Ed., Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 2005.

 Universal’s Criminal Manual, Universal Law Publishing Co., New Delhi, 2013. Weblinks:

 http://law.chdfirms.com/crpc/chapter_27.php  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Criminal_Procedure,_ 1973#Judgement

 http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/crpc/the-code-ofcriminal-procedure-1973-crpc-2nd-page.html#353_Judgment

 http://hanumant.com/CrPC-Unit2-Judgment-Overview.html