A Magistrate is bound to record briefly the reasons for commitment in a committal order under Section 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. This is a reference, made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi and Chamba, Sessions Division.

2. The petitioner was hauled up, under S. 302 I.P.C., for the murder of Smt. Parvati. The prosecution case, against the petitioner, was that she nursed a grudge, against Smt. Parvati, as the latter used to call her a woman of loose character and that the petitioner had taken revenge by murdering Smt. Parvati on the 9th May, 1964, in Domedhi Nal, when Smt. Parvati had gone to graze cattle, in the morning. As Smt. Parvati did not return home for her lunch, her husband, Brij Lal, along with others, had gone in search of her. The dead body of Smt. Parvati was spotted by one Smt. Ganeshu. The dead body was naked. There were blood-stains on the vagina, thighs and abdomen. There were injuries on the head and face of the dead body. Three long blood-stained hair were found, in the half closed fists of the dead body.

3. The report, about the murder, was lodged at the Police Station Goher on the 10th May, 1964. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and certain recoveries and discoveries of blood-stained articles were made. The dead body of Smt. Parvati was sent to the Civil Hospital, Mandi, for postmortem examination. Doctor Ham Dev had performed the postmortem examination. He had found injuries on the head and face of the dead body and was of the opinion that death was due to haemorrhage and shock.

4. The petitioner was challaned, under Section 302 I.P.C., in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Mandi. There were no eyewitnesses to the commission of the offence. The case depended on circumstantial evidence. The Magistrate examined seven witnesses and committed the petitioner to the Court of Session to stand her trial, under S. 302 I.P.C.

5. The petitioner filed a revision-petition, against her commitment before the learned Sessions Judge, praying that the commitment may be quashed. Many grounds were taken up in the revision-petition for quashing the commitment. But the learned Sessions Judge has recommended the quashing of the committal order on two grounds, namely, firstly, that the committal order was not a legal order as the Magistrate had neither discussed evidence, nor given reasons in support of the committal, and, secondly, that the Magistrate failed to exercise his discretion judicially in not examining Smt. Souji, a prosecution witness, to whom the petitioner was alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession. The counsel for the petitioner had confined his arguments, in this Court, to the aforesaid two grounds only.

6. A perusal of the committal order shows that the committing Magistrate did not discuss evidence nor gave any reason in support of the commitment. After giving a resume of the statements of the witnesses examined, the Magistrate observed, "after perusal of the police challan and the oral and documentary evidence on the record, I have come to the conclusion that there exists a prima facie case against the accused and she is, therefore, hereby committed to stand her trial under S. 302 I.P.C., in the Court of the Session Mandi." The learned Magistrate did not disclose, in the committal order, what documentary evidence he had in mind when committing the petitioner. The case depended on circumstantial evidence. The learned Magistrate should have discussed the evidence and indicated the links connecting the petitioner with the crime. He should have also given reasons for believing the evidence forming the various links. Of course, the Magistrate was not required to write a judgement, dealing exhaustively with evidence, holding whether the petitioner was guilty or not. But it was obligatory for him to briefly discuss evidence and to give reasons for accepting or rejecting it. I according to Sub-Section (10) of S. 207A Cr. P.C. the Magistrate was bound to record briefly the reasons for commitment. A committal order, which does not discuss evidence and does not state reasons for commitment, is