IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Penal Code provisions related to culpable homicide, murder, and the exceptions under Section 300 in determining the nature of the offence and the appropriate punishment.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - Before the merits of the appeal are addressed, it is the judgment of conviction that needs to be noticed.

2. The impugned judgment of April 30, 2019 is a classic example of what a judgment can never be. Of the 36 pages expended in coming to a conclusion that the appellant herein had committed murder and was liable to be punished therefor, no more than six lines can be said to be the consideration of the matter or the reflection of how the judicial mind was applied to the facts to arrive at the conclusion.

3. The first 30 pages or so of the judgment reproduces what the various witnesses said, what exhibits had been relied upon and the principal charge that was levelled against the appellant herein. After such Herculean effort, the trial court went on to record the following which indicates some application of mind, never mind the extent thereof:

'36. The injuries inflicted on the deceased with a sharp cutting weapon, that too on the vital part like neck, indicate that the accused had given the blow with an intention to cause the death of the deceased....'

The next two pages carry a quotation from a Supreme Court judgment before a further reflection of the judicial mind appears over the first three lines of paragraph 37:

'37. In the case at hand, the accused caused injury on the vital part of the body that too with a deadly weapon like a 'dao' which is a sharp edge and heavy weapon where the accused is very much aware that assaulting an unarmed person would cause injury and is likely to cause death...'

4. The second instance of application of mind, however, expresses the same sense that the first three lines of paragraph 36 also conveyed. Paragraph 37 then contains another copious quotation from a Supreme Court judgment before a further three lines of the Judge's contribution appears from the following:

'... The medical evidence is corroborated with the evidences of the witnesses. The accused person had the knowledge that the weapon used (Material Exhibit-1) which is a sharp edge weapon is a very dangerous if used will prove fatal, so there is no case of provocation.'

5. Even if the gibberish that is passed off as English is excused, it is the repetition of what is contained in the first three lines of paragraph 36 and the first three lines of paragraph 37, except that the case of provocation is referred to and it is concluded that just because a deadly weapon was used, no case of provocation had been made out. One does not follow from the other; and, there is not even a line of discussion on whether the offence was one of murder or one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, or why.

6. Paragraph 38 of the judgment refers to the appellant's answers in course of his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the operative part of the judgment appears at paragraph 39 thereof:

'39. Having regards (sic) to the oral and documentary evidence adhered (sic) by the witnesses and in the light of the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the firm view that the prosecution has established the case against the accused U/S 302 IPC beyond any shadow of doubt and is convicted (sic).'

7. The conclusion in any judgment, under our constitutional scheme of things governed by the rule of law, must be founded on reasons. The reasons indicate the application of the mind to the matters in issue and the analysis of the facts against the applicable law. In a sense, the reasons chart out the journey of adjudication from the basic facts to the inferences and the ultimate conclusion drawn therefrom by applying the applicable law.

8. The impugned judgment is singularly lacking in reasons and betrays complete non-application of mind or the exercise of any mental faculty at all.

9. The appellant relies on at least three eyewitness statements to the effect that the deceased had repeatedly teased the appellant on that fateful night of December 14, 2016 and the appellant was enraged ther