Appellant Muhammad Usman was tried by Mr. S. Khursheed Hyder Rizvi, Sessions Judge. Shikarpur for the offence under section 302, P.P.C. Who found him guilty and vide judgment, dated 14-3-1985 sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000 to the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Fateh or in default to suffer R.I. For six months appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court in Criminal Jail Appeal No.17 of 1985, which was allowed by this Court on 26-3-1990 and the case was remanded for retrial from the stage the illegality in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Was committed. On remand the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur (Mr. Dargahi L. Mangi) recorded the statement of appellant on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And without recording a self-contained and a complete judgment convicted the appellant for the said offence and vide order, dated 24-11-1990 awarded him the same sentence. This order is the subject --matter of the present appeal filed under section 410, Cr.P.C.
2. While perusing the order, dated 24-11-1990 of the trial Court one cannot escape the impression of misappreciation of law and fallacy of the reasoning. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the following ground:-- ---Since the above defence plea taken by accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. As well as 340(2), Cr.P.C. Is one and same and the above defence plea has already been discussed and considered by the then trial Judge and no fresh evidence to support the above defence plea of accused has been led by him, I do not find any fresh evidence in support of defence plea of accused. I, therefore, cannot alter or change the findings of the then Sessions Judge merely on the same statement of accused recorded under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. With same defence plea.
To sum up above discussion I have gone through the judgment of the then trial Judge and the evidence on record against accused as well as the present evidence recorded under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And after giving thorough bit of my mind have come to the conclusion that the findings of learned the then Sessions Judge have been correctly and rightly held and are based on sound reasons and I cannot change those merely on the same defence plea of accused which has already been pleaded by him before trial Judge in the statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. However, as per orders of Honourable High Court in remand order of the above case I have complied with such orders and recorded the necessary statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
Finding there no change of any sort I hold that the previous judgment of conviction be maintained and accused be remanded to custody to serve out the sentence awarded by the then trial Judge.
The accused is present before me on bail. He is remanded with the conviction warrant to serve out the imprisonment for life and also to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation to the heirs of deceased or to further R.I. For six months more as already ordered in the judgment dated 14-3-1985.--- He has completely lost sight of the fact that this Court has set aside the judgment of his predecessor and it was not expected from him to have supplemented the order of his predecessor without writing a detailed judgment after evaluating the evidence available on record.
3. Section 367, Cr.P.C. Lays down the requirements of a judgment in a criminal case. In common with other cases such judgment must contain-- (i)the facts alleged by the prosecution as well as the accused;
(ii) the point or points for determination; and
(iii) the decision on those points with reasons therefor.
The judgment must be full and complete in all respects and the Judge should direct his own attention to every material question of fact or law.
4. One of the earliest pronouncements on the point involved in this appeal is to be found in the case of Majibul Haidar v. Har Haree Singh Choudhery, reported in PLD 1951 Dacca 61, wherein it was observed:-- "The learned Magistrate should have noted that on the 27th of January, 1948, this Court set aside the convictions and sentences of the petitioners then before it, and it follows that when the Magistrate was disposing of the case afresh according to law, he should have written a complete and self-contained order covering not only the evidence led on the side of the defence in the retrial but also the prosecution case and the evidence of the witnesses adduced in order to prove the prosecution case and a discussion of the salient points arising from their evidence."
5. The requirements of section 367, Cr.P.C. Were also examined in the case of Chiramel Varied Davassikutty v. State reported in AIR 1953 Trav.-Co. 275, wherein it was held:-- "After stating the prosecution case, and mentioning the plea of the accused, the points for consideration should be formulated and the evidence under each of the points should be analysed and discussed before taking the decision on that point. It is beacuse this salutary rule was not observed, that the learned Judge had fallen into this serious error. It is expected that every judgment will be in compliance with the strict provisions of law."
6. This view was followed in the case of Muhammad Yaqoob etc. v. The State reported in 1980 P Cr. L J 992, and it was remarked:-- "Section 367 requires in unmistakable terms that every judgment must contain among other things the point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons .For the decision. A judgment which states merely a few facts and contains no statement of reasons in support of the findings in the case is insufficient and invalid. The weight of evidence cannot be determined by arbitrary rules. The judgment should, therefore, be self-contained and should show that the Court had considered the evidence and had found in case of conviction that the facts proved to the satisfaction of the Court brought an offence home to the accused person and the judgment must be reasonably lucid."
7. I may also usefully borrow the terse observations of Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, J. (as he then was) made in the case of Muhammad Din v. Zabardast Khan and another, reported in PLD 1972 Azad J&K 7. Speaking for a Full Bench the learned Judge stated:-- "It goes without emphasis that the ability of the Courts to administer justice is the foundation of the modern State. It is the duty of a Judge to ensure not only that he dispenses justice but what is equally of vital importance, that justice also seems to have been done. The characteristic of a good judgment is that it must be self-evident and self-explanatory; in other words, it must contain the reasons that justify the conclusions arrived at and these reasons should be such that a disinterested reader can find convincing or at least reasonable. The reasoning should not be left to the imagination of the reader for such an order is apt to be termed as arbitrary."
8. Since the impugned order does not fulfil the requirements of section 367, Cr.P.C., the same is set aside. The case is one again remanded to the trial Court with the direction to write a complete and self-contained judgment as required by law. As the learned Sessions Judge has already formed an opinion the case is transferred to 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur for the said 1 purpose.
The appellant shall appear before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur on 23-10-1991 at 8-00 a.m. He is allowed to continue on bail till the disposal of the case.
9. In the result the appeal is allowed in the above terms.