Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 694 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Kalu Ram & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
State of Delhi
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/06/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & ALTAMAS KABIR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5731-5733 of 2005)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
The appellants question correctness of the judgment
rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court
who dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants simply
observing that the Criminal Revision Petition No.117 of 2001
filed by the informant has been dismissed and the said
revision and appeal related to the same judgment. It is to be
noted that the appellants as accused nos. 2 and 3 faced trial
for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short the ’IPC’), along with accused no.1 i.e. Tej Ram who has
expired in the meantime, while several others some of whom
have died in the meantime, the allegations were under
Sections 147,148, 149 and 307 IPC for which the accused
Nos.1, 2 and 3 were also similarly charged.
The trial court by its judgment dated 13.11.2000 held
that the appellants Kalu Ram and Roop Chand were guilty of
offence punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section
34 IPC and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for seven years with a fine of Rs.1000/- with default
stipulation. All the other accused persons were acquitted.
The informant Ranjit Singh filed a revision application
questioning the conviction of the appellants under Section 304
Part I IPC. According to him they should have been convicted
under Section 302 IPC and the other accused persons should
not have been acquitted. Appellants filed an appeal
questioning their conviction and sentence imposed. Learned
Single Judge took up the criminal revision first and held the
same to be without merit. But without considering the merits
of appeal filed by the present appellants dismissed the same
holding that in view of the decision in the Criminal Revision
Petition No.117 of 2001, the appeal also was without merit.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. It did not
hear the learned counsel for the appellants. On the contrary in
the judgment it has been indicated as if the appellants were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
represented by Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and Ms. Mridul Aggarwal
who in fact were the learned counsel for the informant Ranjit
Singh in the connected Criminal Revision. The summary
disposal of the appeal is also not proper as no opportunity was
granted to the appellants to substantiate their challenge to the
legality of the judgment of the trial court.
We find that the contentions of the learned counsel for
the appellant to be correct. The case of the appellants was not
independently examined. Merely because the Revision Petition
filed by the informant was dismissed that could not have been
a ground for not discussing the merits of the appeal filed by
the appellants. A Criminal Revision Petition may have been
without merit; but that did not make the appeal filed by the
appellants meritless.
On the above grounds alone we set aside the order of the
High Court and sent it to the High Court for a fresh
consideration on merits.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that
they were on bail during the pendency of the appeal before the
High Court. It is open to them to bring this fact to the notice
of the High Court and seek such interim order as is available
in law. Since the appeal is of the year 2000 the High Court is
requested to dispose of the same expeditiously.
The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.