Ram & Anr Vs. State of Delhi  Insc 350 (15 June 2006)
Pasayat & Altamas Kabir
out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5731-5733 of 2005) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.