Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

2. Pertaining to offences under the Indian Penal Code, the various sections thereof enumerate offences contemplated by the legislature. The ingredients of the offences have to be culled out on a reading of the relevant section of the penal code. Since actus reus i.e. the doing of an act is an inseparable part of most offences, the same requires to be established by evidence. The rules of evidence have been prescribed under the Evidence Act 1872. Admissibility and relevance of evidence has to be determined, at a criminal trial, with reference to the provisions of the Evidence Act 1872. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 governs the procedure to be followed at criminal trials.

3. Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 contains provisions relatable to trial before a Court of Sessions. As per Section 232, being a part of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, if after taking the evidence of the prosecution, a Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, it is the duty of the Judge to record an order of acquittal.

4. Chapter XXVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 contains provisions pertaining to the judgment to be delivered by a Court. Section 354 mandates that the judgment shall contain the points for determination and the decision thereon with reasons for the decision.

5. A reasoned decision is not one which spans pages and pages of paper. A reasoned decision is one which shows that the decision maker has come to grip with the issues raised and has dealt with the same, reflecting the process of the mind by which the conclusions have been arrived at.

6. A judgment at the end of a criminal trial which ignores the evidence which has been brought on record, and without application of mind arrives at conclusion sans a reasoning preceding the same, resulting in the conviction of the accused, is a serious violation of the right of the accused Crl. A. No. 623/05, 624-25/05, 626-27/05 & 632/05 Page 4 of 38 guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, because it results in deprivation of personal liberty without following the procedure established by law. Thus, at a trial, when the hand and the mind of a Judge turn cold, the first casualty is Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the second casualty is the oath taken by a Judge to decide every case brought before him as per procedure established by law.

7. We are pained to commence our present decision with a preface aforesaid, for the reason, at least qua accused Ranbir Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased and accused Jai Prakash, the brother-in-law of the deceased, for the offence of murdering Laxmi, learned Counsel for the State Shri Pawan Sharma conceded during arguments in the appeal that there is just no evidence whatsoever to sustain their conviction.

8. We are pained to note that the learned Trial Judge has incorrectly reflected the evidence and has read statements into the testimony of PW-1, not made by her, and indeed not reflected in her deposition recorded by the Court.

9. In para 47 of the impugned decision dated 11.7.2005, the learned Trial Judge has reflected upon the testimony of Smt. Rajo PW-1 as under:

47. I have gone through statement of PW-1 Smt. Rajjo. She has categorically stated that on 20/7/02 at about 11 am she was present in her house when her father-in-law Randhir Singh, Balbir SIngh - husband of Smt. Laxmi, Sunder Lal - her devar and his wife - Asha, Jai Prakash and her mother-in-law - Smt. Dhanpati were all present in the house when they all took Smt. Laxmi to the first floor of the house by dragging her. Accused Sunder was also having an injection syringe and one vial in his hand. She also tried to go upstairs, but she was pushed back by her mother in law Smt.