/2022 INSC 0298/
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2022
 Indrajeet Yadav   .. Appellant
Versus
Santosh Singh and Anr.   .. Respondents
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2022
Indrajeet Yadav               ..Appellant
Versus
Avdhesh Singh @ Chhunnu Singh and Anr.     ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.

2
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common   judgment   and   order   dated   30.03.2019   passed   by   the
High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   in   Criminal   Appeal
No.1083 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.1178 of 2012 by which
the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   appeals   preferred   by   the
original   accused   and   has   acquitted   them   for   the   offences
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), the original complainant/informant
has preferred the present appeals.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
3. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   –
original   complainant/informant   and   learned   counsel   appearing
on behalf of the State have drawn our  attention to the fact that
in the present case the arguments in the appeals were concluded
on   30.03.2019   and  the   High  Court   allowed  the   said  appeals   on
the   very   day   and   pronounced  the   operative   portion   of  the  order
and   set   aside   the   judgment   and   order   of   conviction   passed   by
the learned Trial Court and directed the accused who was in jail

3
to   be   released,   but   a   reasoned   judgment   and   order   was
pronounced after a period of approximately five months.
3.1 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   –
original   complainant/informant   has   heavily   relied   upon   the
recent   decision   of   this   Court   dated   29.10.2020   in   Civil   Appeal
No.3564 of 2020   in the case of   Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr.
versus The State of Maharashtra,   by which such a practice of
pronouncing   the   final   order   without   a   reasoned   judgment   has
been deprecated.   It is submitted that in the aforesaid case this
Hon’ble   Court   considered   another   decision   of   this   Court   in   the
case of  State of Punjab & Ors. versus Jagdev Singh Talwandi,
(1984) 1 SCC 596   as well as other decisions referred in para 4
of   the   said   decision.     It   is   submitted   that   this   Court   also
considered   in   detail   another   decision   in   the   case   of   Anil   Rai
versus   State   of   Bihar,   (2001)   7   SCC   318   by   which   guidelines
have been issued by this Court regarding the pronouncement of
judgments and orders.

4
4. Applying   the   law   laid   down   in   the   case   of   Balaji   Baliram
Mupade   (supra)   and   the   earlier   decisions   of   this   Court   in   the
case of   Jagdev  Singh  Talwandi  (supra)   to  the facts of  the case
on hand, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court is unsustainable.
4.1 In   the   case   of   Balaji   Baliram   Mupade   (supra)   in
paragraphs 1 to 4 it is observed and held as under:
“1.   Judicial   discipline   requires   promptness   in
delivery   of   judgments   –   an   aspect   repeatedly
emphasized   by   this   Court.   The   problem   is
compounded   where   the   result   is   known   but   not
the   reasons.   This   deprives   any   aggrieved   party   of
the   opportunity   to   seek   further   judicial   redressal
in the next tier of judicial scrutiny.
2. A Constitution Bench of this Court as far back
as in the year 1983 in the State of Punjab & Ors.
v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi ­ 1984 (1) SCC 596 drew
the   attention   of   the   High   Courts   to   the   serious
difficulties   which   were   caused   on   account   of   a
practice   which  was  increasingly   being   adopted   by
several High Courts, that of pronouncing the final
orders   2   without   a   reasoned   judgment.   The
relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: 
“30.   We   would   like   to   take   this   opportunity   to
point out that serious difficulties arise on account
of   the   practice   increasingly   adopted   by   the   High
Courts,   of   pronouncing   the   final   order   without   a
reasoned   judgment.   It   is   desirable   that   the   final
order   which   the   High   Court   intends   to   pass
should   not   be   announced   until   a   reasoned
judgment   is   ready   for   pronouncement.   Suppose,

5
for example, that a final order without a reasoned
judgment   is   announced   by   the   High   Court   that   a
house shall be demolished, or that the custody of
a   child   shall   be   handed   over   to   one   parent   as
against   the   other,   or   that   a   person   accused   of   a
serious   charge   is   acquitted,   or   that   a   statute   is
unconstitutional or, as in the instant case, that a
detenu be released from detention. If the object of
passing   such   orders   is   to   ensure   speedy
compliance   with   them,   that   object   is   more   often
defeated   by   the   aggrieved   party   filing   a   special
Leave   Petition   in   this   Court   against   the   order
passed  by  the High Court. That  places this Court
in   a   predicament   because,   without   the   benefit   of
the   reasoning   of   the   High   Court,   it   is   difficult   for
this   Court   to   allow   the   bare   order   to   be
implemented.   The   result   inevitably   is   that   the
operation   of   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
has to be stayed pending delivery  of the reasoned
judgment.” 
3.   Further,   much   later   but   still   almost   two
decades   ago,   this   Court   in   Anil   Rai   v.   State   of
Bihar ­ 2001 (7) SCC 318 deemed it appropriate to
provide   some   guidelines   regarding   the
pronouncement   of   judgments,   expecting   them   to
be followed by all concerned under the mandate of
this   Court.   It   is   not   necessary   to   reproduce   the
directions   except   to   state   that   normally   the
judgment   is   expected   within   two   months   of   the
conclusion   of   the   arguments,   and   on   expiry   of
three   months   any   of   the   parties   can   file   an
application in the High Court with prayer for early
judgment.   If,   for   any   reason,   no   judgment   is
pronounced   for   six   months,   any   of   the   parties   is
entitled   to   move   an   application   before   the   then
Chief   Justice   of   the   High   Court   with   a   prayer   to
re­assign  the  case   before  another   Bench  for   fresh
arguments. 
4.   The   aforementioned   principle   has   been
forcefully   restated   by   this   Court   on   several
occasions including in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh
&   Ors.   v.   State   of   Gujarat   &   Ors.   [AIR   2004   SC

6
3467   paras   80­82],   Mangat   Ram   v.   State   of
Haryana   (2008)   7   SCC   96   paras   5­10]   and   most
recently   in   Ajay   Singh   &   Anr.   Etc.   v.   State   of
Chhattisgarh & Anr.­ AIR 2017 SC 310.”
4.2 Despite  the   strong   observations   made   by  this   Court  as   far
as   back   in   the   year   1984   and   thereafter   repeatedly   reiterated,
still the practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the
judgment  without  a  reasoned  judgment  and to pass a  reasoned
judgment subsequently has been continued.   Such a practice of
pronouncing   the   final   orders   without   a   reasoned   judgment   has
to be stopped and discouraged.
4.3 For   immediate   reference   the   order   passed   in   the   present
case speaks for  itself.   The High  Court heard the arguments  on
30.03.2019 and passed only the following order on that day:
"Heard   Sri   V.   M.   Zaidi,   Senior   Advocate
assisted   by   Sri   M.   J.   Akhtar,   learned   counsel   for
the   appellant   in   the   Criminal   Appeal   No.   1083   of
2012 and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant   in   connected   Criminal   Appeal   No.   1178
of 2012, Sri J. K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the
State and Sri P. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for
the informant. 
We  are  making   the operative  order   here  and
now. We will give reasons later. 
Both the appeals are allowed. The impugned
judgement   and   order   dated   24.02.2012   passed   by
Additional   District   and   ∙   Session   Judge,   T.E.C.P.,

7
Court   No.   1,   Azamgarh   in   S.T.   No.   151   of   2009   is
hereby set­aside. 
Appellant   Santosh   Singh  in  Criminal   Appeal
No.   1083   of   2012   is   on   bail.   He   need   not
surrender.   His   bail   bonds   are   cancelled   and   his
sureties discharged. 
Appellant   Avdhesh   Singh   @   Chhunnu   Singh
in  connected  Criminal  Appeal  No.  1178   of  2012  is
in   jail.   He   shall  be   released   forthwith   unless   he   is
wanted in some other case. 
Both   the   appellants   shall   comply   with   the
provisions   of   Section   437­A   Cr.P.   C.   within   one
month from today. 
There shall however, be no order as to costs."
4.4 From   the   record   of   proceedings   it   appears   that   the
reasoned judgment was pronounced and uploaded after a period
of almost five months.   Therefore, applying the law laid down by
this Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, we set aside
the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
without   further   entering   into   the   merits   of   the   case   nor
expressing   anything   on   merits   in   favour   of   either   party.     We
remand the appeals to the High Court to decide the same afresh
in   accordance   with   law   and   on   its   own   merits.     We   request   the
High   Court   to   finally   decide   and   dispose   of   the   appeals   at   the
earliest   and   preferably   within   a   period   of   six   months   from   the

8
date of the receipt of the present order.   However, it is observed
that   during   the   pendency   of   the   appeals   before   the   High   Court
the accused need not surrender and they may be treated to have
been   released   on   bail   and   continued   to   be   released   on   bail,
however   subject   to   the   ultimate   outcome   of   the   appeals   before
the High Court.   If the conviction is sustained the accused shall
surrender   within   a   period   of   two   weeks   from   the   date   of   the
pronouncement of the judgment.  
Present   appeals   are   accordingly   allowed   to   the   aforesaid
extent.     Registry   is   directed   to   return   the   record   of
proceedings of the case received to the High Court forthwith.
….…………………………….J.
                                                      [M. R. Shah]
…………………………………J
[B.V. Nagarathna]
New Delhi, 
April 19, 2022