CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - II

Judgement - Analysis

NANCY
18010126257
Division – C Submitted to:
3rd year BBA.LLB(Hons.) Prof. Ashish Deshpande
 Page |1

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2

Meaning of Judgment .................................................................................................... 2

Basic Components of Judgment..................................................................................... 3

Pronouncement of Judgment.......................................................................................... 6

Judgment by Metropolitan Magistrate ........................................................................... 8

Judgment in Summary Trials ......................................................................................... 9

No Alteration of Judgment............................................................................................. 9
 Page |2

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

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.

1
Woodroffe Sir John, Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure, 2nd Ed., Vol. 2, Law
Publishers (India) Private Limited, Allahabad, 1994, p. 1019
2
Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.
 Page |3

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:

354. Language and contents of judgment.

(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, every judgment

referred to in section 353……… 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 section 354 (1), 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

3
S. 354, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4
S. 354(1)(a), The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
 Page |4

the court is determined by the State Government. The word “shall” in the above
provision indicates that it is mandatory. 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
court-language, the old practice of writing judgments in English almost continues to
remain unaffected.

2. 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.5 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.6 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.7

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. 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

5
Ramhit v. Emperor, 1934(35) Cr.L.J. 919 All
6
Budhia v. Chhotelal, AIR 1966 Raj 122
7
State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, 1984(1) SCC 596
 Page |5

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.8

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. 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 Adshul9, it was held

that legislative intent behind S. 354(3) clearly 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 Maharashtra10, 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 irreformable

8
S. 354(2), The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
9
AIR 2011 SC
10
2013 Cr.L.J. SC
 Page |6

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. 11 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 ……

……(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed ………. 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.12

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

11
Kelkar R. V., Criminal Procedure, 5th Ed., Eastern Book Comapany, Lucknow, 2012, p.
618
12
Aeltemesh Rein v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 Cr.L.J. 858 Bom.
 Page |7

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 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 Bihar13. 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.14, 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 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

13
2001 SCC (Cr) 1009
14
AIR 1954 SC 194
 Page |8

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 given
in clause (a) to (i).

“(a) The serial number of the case;

…… brief statement of the reasons for the decision."

S. 373 referred to 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.
 Page |9

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 summarily, the Magistrate shall enter, in such form as the State
Government may direct, the following particulars:

(a) The serial number of the case…..

…...................(j) The date on which proceedings terminated.15

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.16

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…………arithmetical error”.

15
S. 263, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
16
Sankaran Unni Vasudevan Unni v. Rasheed, 1980 Cr.L.J. 304 Ker.
 P a g e | 10

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. 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.