SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kalu Ram and Anr
Vs
State of Delhi
Appeal (Crl.) 694 of 2006 (Arising Out of Slp (Crl.) Nos. 5731-5733 of 2005)
(Arijit Pasayat and Altamas Kabir, JJ)
15.06.2006
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 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.
J