State of U.P. Vs. Kamarujjama @ Malva & Ors.
Email(Arising out of SLP (Cr.) No. 6652/2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.99 of the Allahabad High Court in A. No. 361 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (Cr.) No. 6652/2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.99 of the Allahabad High Court in A. No. 361 of 1996)
Mr. U. R. Lalit, Senior Advocate, Ms. Safia Khan, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed and Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with section 149 – Murder – Acquittal of accused by the trial court – Confirmation of acquittal by High Court – High Court rejecting the appeal by simply stating that there was no good ground for interference – Whether such disposal was correct. Held, a concurring judgment should consider the contentions urged before the court and record reasons for agreeing with the order under appeal. The High Court, therefore, should have considered the merits of the case and recorded the reasons for its decision. Judgment, which was bereft of reasons and fell short of the requirements of a speaking order, cannot be sustained. Matter remanded for fresh disposal. (Para 3)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Criminal appeal – Appeal to High Court against acquittal of accused in murder case – High Court confirming acquittal without passing a speaking order – Validity. Held, concurring judgment should consider the contentions urged before the court and record reasons for agreeing with the order under appeal. The High Court, therefore, should have considered the merits of the case and recorded the reasons for its decision. Judgment, which was bereft of reasons and fell short of the requirements of a speaking order, cannot be sustained. Matter remanded for fresh disposal.
1. Leave is granted.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in criminal appeal no. 361/1996 dated November 29, 1999. The impugned judgment reads as follows:
“Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgment. After perusal of the judgment, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment challenged in this appeal. The leave sought is refused, the appeal is accordingly rejected.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, we are of the view that as the accused was acquitted of the charges under sections 147, 148 & 302/149 IPC by the trial court, the High Court in appeal should have considered the merits of the case and recorded the reasons for its decision. The judgment quoted above is bereft of reasons and falls short of the requirements of a speaking order. A confirming judgment need to consider the contentions urged before the court and record reasons for agreeing with the order under appeal. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the said judgment, restore the appeal to the file of the High Court and remit the case to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
