Section 354(1) (v) contemplates that a judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereof and the reasons for the decision.

It is something like the appeal judgment as referred to in Order 41 C.P.C.

However, the common practice prevalent for trial judgments is to briefly state the allegations of the prosecution or the complainant, the charge and the plea of the accused, the summary of the evidence in narration form, the point for determination, the discussion on the point and final conclusion in criminal cases.

Section 354 (l)(c) contemplates that whenever an accused is convicted through a judgment, the offence in respect of which the accused is convicted, the relevant statutory provision as well as the punishment should be mentioned in the judgment.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In other words, whenever an accused is convicted, the relevant portion of the judgment should read “In the result, accused is found guilty and convicted under Section 248(2)/255(2) Criminal Procedure Code for the offences of ABC Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to under R.1/S.1 for………… years, and also to pay a fine of Rs……., in default S.1for one month.

Sometimes, an accused may be convicted under some sections of substantive law and acquitted under other provisions of substantive law. The judgment should clearly contain the sections under which the accused is acquitted and the provisions under which the accused is convicted.

If the conviction is under the provisions of IPC but, it is doubtful under which of the two sections or under which part of the two parts of the same section the conviction is given, the court should clearly express the same pointing out under which provision or sub-provision the accused is convicted or under which provisions the accused is convicted in the alternative.

An important provision is Section 354 (3) Cr.P.C. It ordains that where an alternative sentence is provided in the section, a judge shall state reasons why he is imposing the specified penalty.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

More important is the cases punishable with death, known as capital offences. If an accused is convicted for a capital offence, the court should give special reasons why capital punishment is imposed instead of imprisonment for life.

Earlier the legal position was that whenever a judge imposes imprisonment for life for a capital offence, he was expected to give reasons why capital punishment was not awarded.

From 1955, the situation became the converse. Section 367 and 368 of Cr.P.C. 1898 were amended in 1955 making it obligatory for the judge to give reasons why capital punishment is awarded.

The position prevailed from 1955 onwards under the Old Code had been carried into the present Code. [Ediga Annamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh: AIR 1973 S.C. 774] have set this trend under the present Code in respect of capital punishment.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Another important provision regarding the sentencing is 354 (4) Cr.P.C. This section is incorporated with a view to discourage short prison sentences perhaps on the ground that they do not serve any purpose under any theory of punishment.

For that reason it is incorporated in the very Code that when an offence punishable with imprisonment for one year or more is tried and conviction is given to the accused, the Court shall record special reasons if the Court imposes less than three months imprisonment. However, awarding imprisonment till raising of the Court does not fall within the ambit of S. 354(4) of Cr.P.C. and a Judge/ Magistrate need not state special reasons why imprisonment of less than three months is imposed.