SHAKUNTALA SHUKLAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

                         [2021] 6 S.C.R. 87                            87


                    SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA                                  A
                                 v.
         STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2021)
                      SEPTEMBER 07, 2021                               B
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD
                 AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
       Bail – Murder case – Conviction of accused-private
respondents a/w life sentence – Appeals – Grant of bail by High
                                                                       C
Court during pendency of the appeals – Challenged by widow of
the deceased – Held: Impugned judgment/order passed by the High
Court releasing the accused on bail pending appeal lacks total
clarity on which part of the judgment/order can be said to be
submissions and which part can be said to be the findings/
reasonings – It does not even reflect the submissions on behalf of     D
the Public Prosecutor – Detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the State opposing the bail pending appeal was not even referred
to by the High Court – The manner in which High Court disposed
of the application u/s.389 CrPC and the application for bail
pending appeal cannot be approved – Even on merits also, the
                                                                       E
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable – High Court
failed to note the circumstances under which right from the very
beginning efforts were made to delay/derail the investigation –
High Court also did not consider the seriousness of the offence
and the gravity of the accusation against the accused and their
antecedents and conduct by giving threats to the witnesses during      F
trial and even thereafter – Accused-private respondents to
surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed by trial Court
– High Court to decide the pending appeals on merits – Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/
149, 201 r/w s.120B.
                                                                       G
       Judgments/Orders – Importance and purpose of a judgment
– It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also be
reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible – What the court
says, and how it says it, is equally important as what the court
decides – It is desirable that the judgment should have a clarity,
                                                                       H
                                87
88            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A    both on facts and law and on submissions, findings, reasoning and
     the ultimate relief granted.
           Allowing the appeals, the Court
           HELD: 1. The impugned judgment and order passed by
     the High Court releasing the accused on bail pending appeal
B    lacks total clarity on which part of the judgment and order can
     be said to be submissions and which part can be said to be the
     findings/reasonings. It does not even reflect the submissions on
     behalf of the Public Prosecutor opposing the bail pending appeal.
     A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State
C    opposing the bail pending appeal which has not been even
     referred to by the High Court. The manner in which the High
     Court has disposed of the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
     and has disposed of the application for bail pending appeal cannot
     be approved. [Para 9.1][97-E-F]
D         2. Importance of judgment; purpose of judgment and what
     should be contained in the judgment.
            2.1. “Judgment” means a judicial opinion which tells the
     story of the case; what the case is about; how the court is
     resolving the case and why. “Judgment” is defined as any
E    decision given by a court on a question or questions or issue
     between the parties to a proceeding properly before court. It is
     also defined as the decision or the sentence of a court in a legal
     proceeding along with the reasoning of a judge which leads him
     to his decision. The term “judgment” is loosely used as judicial
     opinion or decision. There are four purposes for any judgment
F    that is written: i) to spell out judges own thoughts; ii) to explain
     the decision to the parties; iii) to communicate the reasons for
     the decision to the public; and iv) to provide reasons for an
     appeal court to consider. [Para 9.2][97-G-H; 98-A-C]
           2.2. It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must
G    also be reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible. The
     judicial opinion is to be written in such a way that it elucidates
     in a convincing manner and proves the fact that the verdict is
     righteous and judicious. What the court says, and how it says it,
     is equally important as what the court decides. Every judgment
     contains four basic elements and they are (i) statement of
H
   SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                        89


material (relevant) facts, (ii) legal issues or questions, (iii)      A
deliberation to reach at decision and (iv) the ratio or conclusive
decision. A judgment should be coherent, systematic and
logically organised. It should enable the reader to trace the fact
to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles. A
judgment has to formulate findings of fact, it has to decide what
                                                                      B
the relevant principles of law are, and it has to apply those legal
principles to the facts. The important elements of a judgment
are: i) Caption ii) Case number and citation iii) Facts iv) Issues
v) Summary of arguments by both the parties vi) Application of
law vii) Final conclusive verdict. [Para 9.3][98-D-H; 99-A]
       2.3. The judgment replicates the individuality of the judge    C
and therefore it is indispensable that it should be written with
care and caution. The reasoning in the judgment should be
intelligible and logical. Clarity and precision should be the goal.
All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly recorded.
The findings and directions should be precise and specific.           D
Writing judgments is an art, though it involves skilful application
of law and logic. The judges may be overburdened with the
pending cases and the arrears, but at the same time, quality can
never be sacrificed for quantity. Unless judgment is not in a
precise manner, it would not have a sweeping impact. There are
some judgments that eventually get overruled because of lack          E
of clarity. Therefore, whenever a judgment is written, it should
have clarity on facts; on submissions made on behalf of the rival
parties; discussion on law points and thereafter reasoning and
thereafter the ultimate conclusion and the findings and thereafter
the operative portion of the order. There must be a clarity on        F
the final relief granted. A party to the litigation must know what
actually he has got by way of final relief. The aforesaid aspects
are to be borne in mind while writing the judgment, which would
reduce the burden of the appellate court too. Many judgments
which lack clarity on facts, reasoning and the findings and many
a times it is very difficult to appreciate what the learned judge     G
wants to convey through the judgment and because of that,
matters are required to be remanded for fresh consideration.
Therefore, it is desirable that the judgment should have a clarity,
both on facts and law and on submissions, findings, reasonings
and the ultimate relief granted. [Para 9.4][99-B-F]                   H
90            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A          3.1. Even on merits also, the impugned order passed by
     the High Court releasing the accused on bail pending appeal is
     unsustainable. The High Court has not at all appreciated and
     considered the fact that the trial Court on appreciation of
     evidence has convicted the accused for the offences under
     Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC. Once the accused have
B
     been convicted by the trial Court, there shall not be any
     presumption of innocence thereafter. Therefore, the High Court
     shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pending appeal
     who are convicted for the serious offences punishable under
     Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC. [Para 11][100-A-B]
C
            3.2. The High Court has also failed to note the
     circumstances under which right from the very beginning the
     efforts were made to delay/derail the investigation. The High
     Court has not appreciated the conduct on the part of the accused
     pending investigation and even during trial. The trial Court has
D    specifically observed while appreciating the evidence of the
     prosecution witnesses that the accused gave threats repeatedly
     to the prosecution witnesses and villagers and threatened them
     that if they give evidence against the accused, they would suffer
     the dire consequences. The High Court has also not very
E    seriously considered the two FIRs filed during trial for the
     offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC against the accused for
     giving threats to the complainant side and others. The High
     Court has not considered the seriousness of the offence and the
     gravity of the accusation against the accused and their
     antecedents and conduct by giving threats to the witnesses
F    during trial and even thereafter. [Paras 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3][100-
     C, D-E, G]
           3.3. The private respondents are directed to surrender
     forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed by the trial Court.
     The High Court shall decide the pending appeals on their own
G    merits, in accordance with law. [Paras 13, 14][101-E-F]
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
     No.876 of 2021.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2018 of the High
H    Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1283 of 2018.
   SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                               91


      With                                                                   A
      Criminal Appeal Nos. 878, 877 and 879 of 2021.
      V.K. Mishra, Ms. Shagun Rai, Bhuwan Raj, Advs. for the
Appellant.
      Ms. Srishti Singh, Ms. Poonam Anand, Sandeep Narain, H.N.              B
Vashisht for M/s S. Narain & Co., Udayaditya Banerjee, Ms. Parul
Shukla, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
                                                                             C
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) dated 08.10.2018 and 06.12.2018 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1283/
2018, 1405/2018, 1496/2018 and 1398/2018, by which the High Court
has released the private respondents herein - accused on bail, pending
the aforesaid criminal appeals, the original complainant – widow of the      D
deceased (victim) has preferred the present appeals.
        2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the judgment and
order dated 08.10.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2018 is the order
first in line by which the main accused – Swaminath Yadav came to
be released on bail and so far as the other accused are concerned, they      E
are released on bail on the ground of parity and order passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 1283 of 2018 (in the case of Swaminath Yadav). Therefore,
Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2021 arising out of the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018
is treated as a lead appeal.
                                                                             F
      2.1 That all the private respondents herein – accused have been
convicted by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections
302/149, 201 r/w Section 120B IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 103/
96, Police Station Bansdeeh, District Ballia and they are sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.2, Ballia vide judgment(s) and order(s) dated 08.02.2018 and        G
09.02.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 1999 (State v. Vikrama
Yadav and others).
      Facts in nutshell
      3. That the dead body of one Kripa Shankar Shukla alias Bajrang        H
92            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A    Shukla was found lying in the well of one Chandramani Pandey on
     28.10.1995 at 10:00 a.m; that an application was moved at the police
     station Bansdeeh, District Ballia; that the police party prepared the
     inquest report on 15.11.1995, however, there was no proper investigation
     carried out by the police officer of police station Bansdeeh, District
     Ballia; that some villagers sent the application to his Excellency the
B
     Governor for impartial investigation of the case; that on 13.12.1995, the
     appellant herein – Shakuntala Shukla (wife of the deceased) moved
     an application before his Excellency the President of India with the facts
     that she is a widow of Kripa Shankar Shukla (deceased) and her
     husband was murdered in the night of 26.10.1995 when he was coming
C    back from Bansdeeh to his village Adar and thereafter the dead body
     was thrown in the well to create confusion; that on the said application
     of the appellant herein, Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
     Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow directed for investigation of
     the matter by CB-CID; that during the investigation, the names of the
     private respondents herein – accused came into light; that CB-CID
D
     submitted the chargesheet against the accused Swaminath Yadav and
     others co-accused under Sections 147, 149, 302, 201, 218, 120B IPC;
     that the learned trial Court framed the charge under Sections 302/149,
     201, 120B IPC.
            3.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that during the
E
     investigation by Crime Branch, it was found that one Shri Jainath Yadav,
     the then Sub-Inspector of Police Station Bansdeeh, District Ballia, under
     the orders of Station House Officer, investigated the incident of death
     of the deceased Kripa Shankar Shukla and in his investigation report
     dated 23.12.1995 in order to save the accused deliberately on the basis
F    of the false facts noted the fact that the deceased under the influence
     of liquor while going to his paramour’s house fell into the well and died
     by drowning, whereas in the post mortem report no symptoms of death
     by drowning were found. It was also found during the investigation
     that even the Doctor Vinod Kumar Rai, District Hospital, Ballia had in
G    the post mortem report of the deceased deliberately mentioned the
     wrong reason for death (died by drowning), in order to save the
     accused.
            3.2 The learned trial Court therefore passed an order to prosecute
     the then Station House Officer, Sub-Inspector of Police Jainath Yadav
H    and the Doctor Vinod Kumar Rai.
   SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                              93
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       3.3 That during the trial, the prosecution examined 8 main           A
witnesses; statement of one Doctor Chandrabhal Tripathy was recorded
as Court witness; that number of documentary evidence were also
brought on record; that in the depositions, the witnesses – villagers who
were examined on behalf of the prosecution specifically stated that
before they gave the evidence/statements, they were threatened by the
                                                                            B
accused; not only that but an FIR was also lodged against the accused
persons for giving threats for the offences under Sections 504 & 506
IPC; that all the witnesses – villagers who were examined specifically
stated with respect to threats administered by the accused and they
were told not to give any evidence against the accused; that during the
investigation the prosecution also established and proved the motive;       C
that on appreciation of evidence and having specifically found from the
post mortem report that the lungs of the deceased were found congested,
however, no water was found in the lungs; that the learned trial Court
specifically noted that despite the above, SI Jainath Yadav neither
considered the above points himself nor sought any opinion in this regard
                                                                            D
from any doctor; that the learned trial Court also noticed that before
preparing the enquiry report, neither he enquired from the brother, wife
and son of the deceased nor recorded their statements; that thereafter
on appreciation of evidence, more particularly the evidence of last seen
with the deceased at about 8 O’clock in the night on 26.10.1995 along
with the accused persons and thereafter Kripa Shankar Shukla was            E
not seen by anybody and ultimately the dead body was found in the
well at about 10:40 a.m. on 28.10.1995. That the learned trial Court
vide its judgment dated 08.02.2018 convicted the private respondents
herein – accused persons, namely, Vikrama Yadav, Swaminath Yadav,
Jhingur Bhar, Surendra Kumar Pandey and Umesh Kumar Pandey for
                                                                            F
the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC. That the
learned trial Court also convicted the then Investigating Officer Jainath
Yadav and the Doctor Vinod Kumar Rai who performed the post
mortem on the body of the deceased and stated the wrong reason of
death for the offences under Sections 201 r/w 120B and 218 IPC.
      4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order     G
of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court imposing
the sentence of life imprisonment, convicted accused – Swaminath
Yadav has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018; convicted accused
– Surendra Kumar Pandey has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1405/
2018; convicted accused Jhingur Bhar has preferred Criminal Appeal          H
94            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A    No. 1496/2018; and convicted accused Vikrama Yadav has preferred
     Criminal Appeal No. 1398 of 2018 before the High Court.
            4.1 In the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018, accused
     Swaminath Yadav preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
     being Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 praying for releasing him on
B    bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal. That by the impugned
     judgment and order dated 08.10.2018, the High Court has allowed the
     said bail application and has directed to release the accused – Swaminath
     Yadav on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in
     the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
C           4.2 Order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the High Court in Criminal
     Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal
     No. 1283/2018 in the case of accused – Swaminath Yadav has been
     followed in other three appeals and other three accused, namely,
     Surendra Kumar Pandey, Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama Yadav are also
D    released on bail on parity and on the ground that co-accused Swaminath
     Yadav has been released on bail by a coordinate Bench.
           5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders
     passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail pending
     respective criminal appeals, the appellant – victim – wife of the
E    deceased has preferred the present criminal appeals.
           5.1 At this stage it is required to be noted that by the time the
     High Court released the accused on bail, they had undergone 8 months
     sentence only.
           6. Shri V.K. Mishra, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf
F    of the appellant, S/Shri Sandeep Narain and Udayaditya Banerjee,
     learned Advocates have appeared on behalf of the accused in Criminal
     Appeal Nos. 876 and 877 of 2021 and Ms. Srishti Singh, learned
     Advocate has appeared on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
            6.1 Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of the
G    remaining accused. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
     the private respondents – accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 876 and
     877 of 2021 have fairly assisted the Court with their submissions which
     will cover all the cases.
          6.2 Shri V.K. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
H    the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
   SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                               95
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

circumstances of the case the High Court has committed a grave error         A
in releasing the respondents – accused on bail pending their respective
appeals.
       6.3 It is submitted that while releasing the accused on bail, the
High Court has not at all properly appreciated and considered the fact
that by a detailed judgment and order and after appreciation of the entire   B
evidence on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused
for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC and
sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.
       6.4 It is submitted that once the accused are convicted for the
very serious offence under Section 302 IPC by the learned trial Court,       C
there shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter and therefore
the High Court shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pending
appeals who are convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149,
201 r/w 120B IPC.
       6.5 It is further submitted that as such no reasons whatsoever        D
have been assigned by the High Court while releasing the accused on
bail pending appeals. It is submitted that the High Court has failed to
note the circumstances under which right from the very beginning the
efforts were made to derail the investigation and even the trial Court
also convicted the then Investigating Officer and even the doctor who        E
performed the post mortem for the offences under Sections 201 r/w
120B and 218 IPC.
       6.6 It is submitted that the High Court has not at all properly
appreciated and/or noted and/or considered the fact that the prosecution
witnesses – villagers who deposed against the accused were given             F
threats repeatedly by the accused who were on bail and threatened
them that if they give evidence against the accused, they will have to
suffer dire consequences.
       6.7 It is submitted that the High Court has also failed to note
that even two FIRs were filed during the trial for the offences under        G
Sections 504 and 506 IPC against the accused for giving threats to the
complainant side and others.
      6.8 It is submitted that in the impugned judgments and orders,
the High Court has not at all even referred to the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the State opposing bail pending appeals.                        H
96             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A          6.9 It is submitted that therefore the High Court while releasing
     the private respondents herein – accused on bail pending criminal
     appeals against the judgment and order of conviction has not at all
     considered the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the
     accusation against the accused and their antecedents and conduct of
     giving threats to the witnesses during trial and even thereafter.
B
           6.10 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
     present appeals and quash and set aside the impugned orders passed
     by the High Court releasing the accused on bail, pending criminal
     appeals.
C           7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has fully
     supported the appellant. It is submitted that the High Court has failed
     to notice and/or consider the motive, antecedents and conduct of the
     accused even during trial and the manner in which all efforts were made
     right from the very beginning to scuttle the fair investigation.

D           7.1 It is submitted that as such no specific reasons have been
     assigned by the High Court while releasing the accused on bail pending
     appeals. It is submitted that the manner in which the High Court has
     disposed of the bail applications and released the accused on bail pending
     appeals is not sustainable at all. It is submitted that from the impugned
     orders passed by the High Court, it is difficult to identify the submissions
E    on behalf of the accused and even the findings recorded while releasing
     the accused on bail. It is submitted that even the submissions on behalf
     of the State have not been summarised and/or discussed at all.
            7.2 It is submitted that criminal history of two cases against the
     accused for the offences under Sections 143, 504 & 506 being CR No.
F    158/1996 and CR No. 23/1999 under Sections 504 & 506 IPC are taken
     very lightly by the High Court. It is submitted that the High Court ought
     to have appreciated that the aforesaid cases were for giving threats
     by the accused to the witnesses and the family members of the
     deceased including the appellant herein.
G           8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents –
     accused have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
     of the case, no error has been committed by the High Court releasing
     the accused on bail, pending appeals.
           8.1 It is submitted that admittedly it is a case of circumstantial
H    evidence and not a single witness had stated that he saw any of the
   SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                97
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

accused murdering Kripa Sankar Shukla or even throwing his dead body          A
in the well. It is submitted that even in the post mortem report, the
cause of death was shown ‘died by drowning’. It is submitted that there
is no other further medical evidence showing the different cause of
death.
       8.2 It is further submitted that during the trial the accused were     B
on bail and even thereafter also by the impugned orders the accused
are on bail and nothing is on record that thereafter they have misused
the liberty granted by the Court by releasing them on bail. It is submitted
that therefore no case is made out to cancel the bail granted by the
High Court.
                                                                              C
      8.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
present appeals.
       9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length. We have also carefully gone through the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail pending      D
appeal against the judgment and order of conviction for the offences
punishable under Sections 302/149, 201 and 120B IPC.
       9.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail pending appeal,
we are at pains to note that the order granting bail to the accused           E
pending appeal lacks total clarity on which part of the judgment and
order can be said to be submissions and which part can be said to be
the findings/reasonings. It does not even reflect the submissions on
behalf of the Public Prosecutor opposing the bail pending appeal. A
detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State opposing the
bail pending appeal which has not been even referred to by the High           F
Court. The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the
application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and has disposed of the
application for bail pending appeal cannot be approved. It is very
unfortunate that by this judgment, we are required to observe the
importance of judgment; purpose of judgment and what should be                G
contained in the judgment.
      9.2 First of all, let us consider what is “judgment”. “Judgment”
means a judicial opinion which tells the story of the case; what the case
is about; how the court is resolving the case and why. “Judgment” is
defined as any decision given by a court on a question or questions or        H
98             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A    issue between the parties to a proceeding properly before court. It is
     also defined as the decision or the sentence of a court in a legal
     proceeding along with the reasoning of a judge which leads him to his
     decision. The term “judgment” is loosely used as judicial opinion or
     decision. Roslyn Atkinson, J., Supreme Court of Queensland, in her
     speech once stated that there are four purposes for any judgment that
B
     is written:
                  i) to spell out judges own thoughts;
                  ii) to explain your decision to the parties;
                 iii) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the
C                     public; and
                 iv) to provide reasons for an appeal court to consider
           9.3 It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also be
     reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible. The judicial opinion is
D    to be written in such a way that it elucidates in a convincing manner
     and proves the fact that the verdict is righteous and judicious. What
     the court says, and how it says it, is equally important as what the court
     decides.
             Every judgment contains four basic elements and they are (i)
     statement of material (relevant) facts, (ii) legal issues or questions, (iii)
E
     deliberation to reach at decision and (iv) the ratio or conclusive decision.
     A judgment should be coherent, systematic and logically organised. It
     should enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on
     the basis of legal principles. It is pertinent to examine the important
     elements in a judgment in order to fully understand the art of reading a
F    judgment. In the Path of Law, Holmes J. has stressed the insentient
     factors that persuade a judge. A judgment has to formulate findings of
     fact, it has to decide what the relevant principles of law are, and it has
     to apply those legal principles to the facts. The important elements of
     a judgment are:
G                 i) Caption
                  ii) Case number and citation
                 iii) Facts
                 iv) Issues
H                 v) Summary of arguments by both the parties
   SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                               99
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

            vi) Application of law                                           A
           vii) Final conclusive verdict
        9.4 The judgment replicates the individuality of the judge and
therefore it is indispensable that it should be written with care and
caution. The reasoning in the judgment should be intelligible and logical.
                                                                             B
Clarity and precision should be the goal. All conclusions should be
supported by reasons duly recorded. The findings and directions should
be precise and specific. Writing judgments is an art, though it involves
skilful application of law and logic. We are conscious of the fact that
the judges may be overburdened with the pending cases and the arrears,
but at the same time, quality can never be sacrificed for quantity. Unless   C
judgment is not in a precise manner, it would not have a sweeping impact.
There are some judgments that eventually get overruled because of lack
of clarity. Therefore, whenever a judgment is written, it should have
clarity on facts; on submissions made on behalf of the rival parties;
discussion on law points and thereafter reasoning and thereafter the         D
ultimate conclusion and the findings and thereafter the operative portion
of the order. There must be a clarity on the final relief granted. A
party to the litigation must know what actually he has got by way of
final relief. The aforesaid aspects are to be borne in mind while writing
the judgment, which would reduce the burden of the appellate court
                                                                             E
too. We have come across many judgments which lack clarity on facts,
reasoning and the findings and many a times it is very difficult to
appreciate what the learned judge wants to convey through the
judgment and because of that, matters are required to be remanded
for fresh consideration. Therefore, it is desirable that the judgment
should have a clarity, both on facts and law and on submissions, findings,   F
reasonings and the ultimate relief granted.
       10. If we consider the impugned order passed by the High Court,
as observed hereinabove, we find that there is a total lack of clarity on
the submissions, which part of the order is submission, which part of
the order is the finding and/or reasoning. As observed hereinabove,          G
even the submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor have not been
noted and referred to, though a detailed counter affidavit was filed by
the State opposing the bail applications. We do not approve the manner
in which the High Court has disposed of the application for bail pending
appeal.                                                                      H
100            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A            11. Even on merits also, the impugned order passed by the High
      Court releasing the accused on bail pending appeal is unsustainable.
      The High Court has not at all appreciated and considered the fact that
      the learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence has convicted the
      accused for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.
      Once the accused have been convicted by the learned trial Court, there
B     shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter. Therefore, the
      High Court shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pending
      appeal who are convicted for the serious offences punishable under
      Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.
              11.1 Even the High Court has also failed to note the
C     circumstances under which right from the very beginning the efforts
      were made to delay/derail the investigation. It is to be noted that even
      the learned trial Court also convicted the investigating officer and even
      the doctor who performed the post mortem for the offences under
      Sections 201 r/w 120B and 218 IPC.
D            11.2. The High Court has also not appreciated the conduct on
      the part of the accused pending investigation and even during trial. The
      trial Court has specifically observed while appreciating the evidence
      of the prosecution witnesses that the accused gave threats repeatedly
      to the prosecution witnesses and villagers and threatened them that if
      they give evidence against the accused, they would suffer the dire
E     consequences. The High Court has also not very seriously considered
      the two FIRs filed during trial for the offences under Sections 504 &
      506 IPC against the accused for giving threats to the complainant side
      and others. The High Court has very casually observed that two cases
      for the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC are of a simple nature
F     and that “these two cases will not constitute the criminal history of the
      accused”. Giving threats to the complainant side and the other
      witnesses and the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC can be said
      to be a very serious offence. Therefore, the aforesaid conduct ought
      not to have been taken by the High Court very lightly.
             11.3. Even, the High Court has also not considered the
G
      seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the accusation against
      the accused and their antecedents and conduct by giving threats to the
      witnesses during trial and even thereafter. The High Court ought to
      have noted that when the High Court released the accused on bail
      pending appeal, they have undergone only 8 months sentence against
H     the life sentence imposed by the learned trial Court.
   SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                101
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, therefore       A
even on merits also, the High Court has committed a grave error in
releasing the accused on bail pending appeals against the judgment and
order of conviction for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w
120B IPC.
       13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the         B
present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment(s) and orders(s)
dated 08.10.2018 and 06.12.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018,
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal
Appeal No. 1405/2018, Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1A/
1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1496/2018 and Criminal Miscellaneous         C
Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1398/2018
respectively releasing the private respondents herein – accused on bail
pending appeal, namely, Swaminath Yadav, Surendra Kumar Pandey,
Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama Yadav against the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting them for the          D
offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC are hereby quashed
and set aside. The private respondents herein – accused, namely,
Swaminath Yadav, Surendra Kumar Pandey, Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama
Yadav are hereby directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the
sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, failing which the learned
trial Court is directed to issue warrants of arrest against them and take     E
them into custody forthwith. A copy of this order be also forwarded
to the concerned trial Court for compliance.
      14. The present appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. It
goes without saying that the High Court shall decide the pending appeals
on their own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any              F
observations made in this judgment.


Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                       Appeals allowed.

                                                                              G




                                                                              H