Sharma, J. - (1.) RATAN Lal the applicant before me was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gangapur under sec. 326 of the Penal Code and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. On appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur the conviction has been altered to one under sec. 324, but the sentence awarded by the trial court has been maintained.
(2.) THE case for the prosecution is that on the 4th of February, 1949, at about 10 A. M. the applicant, along with two others assaulted Ananda and Kalyan with the result that the upper portion of Ananda's left ear was cut out and some injuries were received by Kalyan. THE Learned Magistrate acquitted the two co-accused i. e. Ramnath and Jhumaria but convicted Ratan Lal under sec. 326 and sentenced him as above. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, held that 110 grievous injury was caused and, therefore, altered the conviction to on -under sec. 324 and maintained the sentence. THE applicant Ratanlal has come i 1 revision to this Court. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant at the very outset that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal cannot be said to be a judgment in accordance with law. No discussion of evidence is given nor have any contradictions in the evidence been brought out. The learned Sessions Judge has simply given the names of all the prosecution witnesses at one place and said that from their evidence it was proved that the applicant caused the ear-injury to Ananda. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, has argued that the whole of the evidence has been fully discussed in the judgment of the first court and therefore, it was not necessary for the appellate court to discuss that evidence over again. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsels and have carefully read the judgment of the appellate court. To my mind the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not do justice to the case. The appellate court in a criminal case is the final judge of facts and its judgment should be self-contained so that it may not be ordinarily necessary for the revisional court to refer to the judgment of the trial court. It was held by a single judge of this High Court in a case of Sitaram vs. State reported in 1950 Rajasthan Law Weekly p. 281 that the court of the Session Judge is a court of first criminal appeal and its findings of fact are generally accepted in the High Court. Hence a grave responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Sessions Judge and his judgment must be such as may clearly indicate that he has fully applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Even if he agrees with the judgment of the lower court and dismisses the appeal, it may not be necessary for it to write a long and elaborate judgment but the judgment should be independent and self-contained so that it may indicate that the appellate court had considered the case in a proper way and the High Court in revision may be able to follow it without reference to the trial court's judgment. In the judgment under revision, the learned Sessions Judge has given the names of all the prosecution witnesses at one place and has said that from the evidence of these witnesses, the complicity and the responsibility of the accused Ratan Lal was clearly proved. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the statements of all these witnesses and with the exception of Kalyan, Ananda and Johri, none of the witnesses has spoken about the cutting of the ear by the accused Ratan Lal. One of these witnesses is the Medical Examiner and naturally he has deposed about the injuries and has nothing to say about the persons who caused the injuries. One of them was the investigating Sub-Inspector of Police who was not an eye-witness. Jagan, Phondia and Bhagwati too have not deposed that they saw the ear being cut by Ratan Lal. Thus the learned Sessions Judge was left with the evidence of Kalyan, Ananda and Johri only in order to find out whether their statements about the cutting of the ear were correct. If he had confined his attention to the evidence of these three witnesses only and then had come to the conclusion that he was satisfied with the evidence of these witnesses about Ratan Lal's cutting the ear of Ananda, probably this court would not have had anything to say against the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. As it is, I am not satisfied with the judgment of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge that he focused his attention on the evidence of those witnesses whose evidence was really material in the case. The learned Sessions Judge has also said in a sweeping way that there were certain contradictions but those contradictions were not material. The learned Sessions Judge has not helped this court by mentioning those contradictions and by saying as to those contradictions were made by which of the witnesses. It is, therefore, not possible for this court to accept the finding of the learned Sessions Judge even though it is a finding of fact. The judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. The application for revision is allowed, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the case is sent back to him for writing a proper judgment in accordance with law after hearing the parties in appeal before him. . ;