Deepak Rajak Vs. State of West Bengal
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of 2001
[From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2001 of the High Court of Calcutta in G.A. No. 17 of 2000]
[From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2001 of the High Court of Calcutta in G.A. No. 17 of 2000]
Petitioner: Deepak Rajak
Respondent: State of West Bengal
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of 2001
[From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2001 of the High Court of Calcutta in G.A. No. 17 of 2000]
[From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2001 of the High Court of Calcutta in G.A. No. 17 of 2000]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jun 14, 2007
Appearances:
Appearances :
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Mr. Anand, Mr. Anil Misra, Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. T.C. Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocates for the Respondent.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Mr. Anand, Mr. Anil Misra, Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. T.C. Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
Criminal Law
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302, 201 and 34 Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 136 and 142 Co-accused stood acquitted vide JT 2003(7) SC 176. Held that benefit should go to other accused also, provided he has surrendered.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302, 201 and 34 Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 136 and 142 Co-accused stood acquitted vide JT 2003(7) SC 176. Held that benefit should go to other accused also, provided he has surrendered.
Held:
The position in law as to what happens in case of acquittal of similarly placed co-accused on the same set of facts and on similar accusations has been considered by this Court in several cases. (Para 5)
A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended. (Para 6)
Cases Reffered:
1. Munna Kumar v. State of Bihar [2005 (12) SCC 209]. (Para 4)
2. Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar [2005 (10) SCC 336]. (Para 4)
3. Mohinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [JT 2003 (supp-1) SC 117] (Para 4)
4. Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu v. State of A.P. [JT 2003 (7) SC 558]. (Para 4)
5. Mousam Singha Roy and Others v. State of W.B. [JT 2003 (7) SC 176]. (Para 2)
6. Hem Raj & Anr. v. State of Punjab [JT 2003 (7) SC 614]. (Para 4)
7. Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [JT 2003 (6) SC 309]. (Para 4)
8. Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra [2003 (2) SCC 708]. (Para 4)
9. Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [JT 2003 (1) SC 60]. (Para 4)
10. Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [JT 2003 (3) SC 239]. (Para 4)
11. Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar [JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 372]. (Para 4)
12. Jayantibhai Bhenkar v. State of Gujarat [JT 2002 (7) CC 402]. (Para 4)
13. Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P. [JT 1999 (6) SC 166]. (Para 4)
14. Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 558]. (Para 4)
15. Raja Ram & Ors. v. State of M.P. [JT 1994 (2) SC 36]. (Para 4)
2. Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar [2005 (10) SCC 336]. (Para 4)
3. Mohinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [JT 2003 (supp-1) SC 117] (Para 4)
4. Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu v. State of A.P. [JT 2003 (7) SC 558]. (Para 4)
5. Mousam Singha Roy and Others v. State of W.B. [JT 2003 (7) SC 176]. (Para 2)
6. Hem Raj & Anr. v. State of Punjab [JT 2003 (7) SC 614]. (Para 4)
7. Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [JT 2003 (6) SC 309]. (Para 4)
8. Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra [2003 (2) SCC 708]. (Para 4)
9. Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [JT 2003 (1) SC 60]. (Para 4)
10. Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [JT 2003 (3) SC 239]. (Para 4)
11. Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar [JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 372]. (Para 4)
12. Jayantibhai Bhenkar v. State of Gujarat [JT 2002 (7) CC 402]. (Para 4)
13. Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P. [JT 1999 (6) SC 166]. (Para 4)
14. Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 558]. (Para 4)
15. Raja Ram & Ors. v. State of M.P. [JT 1994 (2) SC 36]. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Appellant faced trial alongwith several others for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 201 read with Section 34 and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC).
2. The factual details need not detain us as undisputedly the co-accused have been acquitted by this Court in Mousam Singha Roy and Others v. State of W.B.1. The effect of such acquittal vis-a-vis similarly situated co-accused has been considered by this Court in several cases.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on various decisions of this Court contending that the benefit of acquittal should be extended to the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the appellant did not surrender initially and therefore decisions relied upon may not have any relevance. He relied on the decisions in Raja Ram & Ors. v. State of M.P.1 ; Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab2; Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P.3 ; Jayantibhai Bhenkar v. State of Gujarat4 ; Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar5 ; Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan6 ; Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra7 ; Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar8 ; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana9 ; Hem Raj & Anr. v. State of Punjab10 ; Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu v. State of A.P.11 ; Mohinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.12 ; Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar13 and Munna Kumar v. State of Bihar14. The appellant subsequently surrendered and has suffered custody for more than two years.
5. The position in law as to what happens in case of acquittal of similarly placed co-accused on the same set of facts and on similar accusations has been considered by this Court in several cases.
6. A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended.
7. The appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is set aside.
****************
1. Appellant faced trial alongwith several others for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 201 read with Section 34 and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC).
2. The factual details need not detain us as undisputedly the co-accused have been acquitted by this Court in Mousam Singha Roy and Others v. State of W.B.1. The effect of such acquittal vis-a-vis similarly situated co-accused has been considered by this Court in several cases.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on various decisions of this Court contending that the benefit of acquittal should be extended to the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the appellant did not surrender initially and therefore decisions relied upon may not have any relevance. He relied on the decisions in Raja Ram & Ors. v. State of M.P.1 ; Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab2; Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P.3 ; Jayantibhai Bhenkar v. State of Gujarat4 ; Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar5 ; Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan6 ; Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra7 ; Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar8 ; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana9 ; Hem Raj & Anr. v. State of Punjab10 ; Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu v. State of A.P.11 ; Mohinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.12 ; Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar13 and Munna Kumar v. State of Bihar14. The appellant subsequently surrendered and has suffered custody for more than two years.
5. The position in law as to what happens in case of acquittal of similarly placed co-accused on the same set of facts and on similar accusations has been considered by this Court in several cases.
6. A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended.
7. The appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is set aside.
****************
