ORDER :

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.

This appeal under Section 372(I) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.05.2011 passed in CRA No.49/2012 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.) whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 323 of IPC.

2. At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/State that the learned appellate Court without assigning reason has set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. The judgment/order is short, cryptic and non-speaking as it does not contain any discussion and reasoning. Thus, it suffers from perversity and illegality and cannot be allowed to be maintained. He prayed that this case has to be remanded back to the appellate Court to decide it as per law. The counsel for appellant has placed reliance upon the decisions viz. Bani Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. (1996) 4 SCC 720, State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal and Others (2004) 5 SCC 573 and Aman Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2024) 6 ILRA 12.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/State and also the appeal but he fairly admits that the learned appellate Court without giving any reasoning has set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgement.

5. In case of Bani Singh (supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that law clearly expects that the appellate court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the reasonings with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court are consistent with the material on record.

6. In case of Sohan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-3 of the judgment has again reiterated that giving of reason for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind. The judgment of Bani Singh (supra) has been followed by the Allahabad High Court in case of Aman Sinha (supra).

7. In case of State of Project Director, UP Education for all Projects Board Ors. Vs. Saroj Maurya & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3465 of 2023), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"3. We are of the opinion that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained. In this regard, we are benefitted by the following observations made by this Court in CCT v. Shukla & Bros.3,. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow: -

“23. We are not venturing to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the For short ‘the G.Os.’ (2010) 4 SCC 785 contentions of law raised before the High Court in the present petition, but it was certainly expected of the High Court to record some kind of reasons for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Department at the very threshold. A litigant has a legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/prayer. It is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on appropriate grounds. Besides, this would be for the benefit of the higher or the appellate court. As arguments bring things hidden and obscure to the light of reasons, reasoned judgment where the law and factual matrix of the case is discussed, provides lucidity and foundation for conclusions or exercise of judicial discretion by the courts.

24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of