Mudaliyar, J.-Thirugnanam (A-1) and Ramasamy (A-2) are the Appellants. They appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Session, Tiruchirapalli Division convicting them of the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code (A-1 only) and also under section 326, Indian Penal Code (both A-1 and A-2) under charge Nos. 3 and 5 respectively. 2. The two appellants (A-1 and A-2) and three others took their trial on eight charges for offences like sections 147, 148, 302, read with 149, 324 and 323 Indian Penal Code. A-3 to A-5 were acquitted of all the charges. A-1 and A-2 also were acquitted of all the other charges. After discussing the evidence Mudaliar, J. continued:] 3. We confirm the conviction of A-1 under section 302, Indian Penal Code and also the sentence of imprisonment for life. We also confirm his conviction under section 326, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years. We direct the sentences to run concurrently. 4. We set aside the conviction of A-2 for an offence punishable under section 326, Indian Penal Code and acquit him. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 5. Save for the acquittal of A-2, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 6. Before parting with this case, I am constrained to observe that the form of the judgment is not satisfactory. The learned trial Judge must take up charge after charge, collate the entire evidence under the particular charge, give reasons for his acceptance or rejection of the prosecution evidence and record a definite finding under each of the charges. Even under each charge, the learned trial Judge ought to discuss the relevant and material evidence pertaining to the presence, part and overt Act of each of the accused. This judgment falls short of the expected standard of the proper treatment at the level of a Court of Session in cases of rioting, unlawful assembly, hurt, grievous hurt and murder.