Mattar Vs. State of U.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.98/13.10.98 & 16.10.98 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 2091 of 1980)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.98/13.10.98 & 16.10.98 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 2091 of 1980)
Petitioner: Mattar
Respondent: State of U.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.98/13.10.98 & 16.10.98 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 2091 of 1980)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.98/13.10.98 & 16.10.98 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 2091 of 1980)
Judges: Y.K. SABHARWAL & H.K. SEMA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 23, 2002
Appearances:
Mr. B.B. Singh, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Advo-cates for the Appellant.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and Mr. A.S. Pundir, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 read with Section 34 – Criminal procedures – Murder case – Conviction found on ocular testimony – On appeal judges of the division bench giving differing judgments – Matter according-ly placed before third judge – Third judge not independently considering the testimony of eye witnesses but merely indicating his agreement with one view without giving reasons – Whether such course adopted by third judge correct. Held the third judge was required to independently examine the matter and express his opinion. It is not permissible to only or merely indicate his agreement with one or the other view without giving reasons therefor. Matter accordingly remanded to High Court to be heard afresh by the third judge so as to make available a reasoned opinion.
Held:
The judges in different dissenting opinions have given detailed reasons, for and against the acceptance of version as deposed by these eye witnesses. The third learned judge, under these circumstances, was required to independently examine the matter and express his opinion. It is not permissible to only or merely indicate the agreement with one or other view without giving reasons therefor. (Para 4)
The matter deserves to be remanded to the High Court so that it may be heard afresh by a third judge so as to make available to the parties a reasoned opinion showing that the relevant evidence and submissions that may be urged by counsel for the parties have been independently considered. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant and his brother were charged for double murder- one of Ashok Kumar and other of Ram Prasad. Appellant was con-victed under section 302 IPC and his brother for offence under section 302/34 IPC by court of sessions. They were awarded life sentence.
2. During the pendency of appeal in the High Court against con-viction and sentence passed by the court of sessions, brother of the appellant died. The appellant’s appeal was heard by a divi-sion bench of the High Court. There was difference of opinion between the two learned judges, one expressed the opinion that the appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed and the other learned judge was of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Both the learned judges gave separate judgments which are fairly lengthy and contain a detailed examination of evi-dence. In view of this difference of opinion the matter was placed before a third learned judge.
3. The case of the prosecution is based on the ocular testimony of three witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3, besides the testimony of the informant PW4 and other evidence including medical evidence produced in the trial before the court of sessions. The third learned judge, before whom the matter was placed, expressed the opinion that the appellant was rightly convicted under section 302 IPC and awarded sentence of life imprisonment. In that opin-ion a brief reference has been made to the testimony of only one of the eye-witnesses, namely PW3 Smt. Kallania. According to the prosecution she was eye-witness to the murder of Ram Prasad and not to the murder of the other deceased – Ashok Kumar. The eye-witnesses to the murder of Ashok Kumar according to the prosecu-tion case, were PW1 and PW3. PW3 is an employee of PW1. Ashok Kumar deceased was brother of PW1. PW4 is father of Ashok Kumar and PW1 Sushil Kumar.
4. In view of the opinion of third learned judge the appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The judgment and order of High Court is under challenge in this appeal. We have gone through the opinion of the third learned judge. Unfortunately, except a brief reference to the testimony of PW2, the said opinion does not show that the learned judge independently considered the testimony of other eye-witnesses, in particular – PW1 and PW3. The judges in different dissenting opinions have given detailed reasons, for and against the acceptance of version as deposed by these eye witnesses. The third learned judge, under these circumstances, was required to independently examine the matter and express his opinion. It is not permissible to only or merely indicate the agreement with one or other view without giving reasons therefor. Therefore, Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that the matter deserves to be remanded to the High Court so that it may be heard afresh by a third judge so as to make available to the parties a reasoned opinion showing that the relevant evidence and submissions that may be urged by counsel for the parties have been independently considered. We refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and make it clear that merits have not been examined by this Court which aspect would be considered by the High Court (third Hon’ble Judge) in accordance with law.
5. In view of the fact that the appellant is in custody for a long period, we request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously and, if possible, within a period of four months.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court in Crl. A. No. 2091/80 and remit the matter to the High Court in terms aforestated. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. The appellant and his brother were charged for double murder- one of Ashok Kumar and other of Ram Prasad. Appellant was con-victed under section 302 IPC and his brother for offence under section 302/34 IPC by court of sessions. They were awarded life sentence.
2. During the pendency of appeal in the High Court against con-viction and sentence passed by the court of sessions, brother of the appellant died. The appellant’s appeal was heard by a divi-sion bench of the High Court. There was difference of opinion between the two learned judges, one expressed the opinion that the appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed and the other learned judge was of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Both the learned judges gave separate judgments which are fairly lengthy and contain a detailed examination of evi-dence. In view of this difference of opinion the matter was placed before a third learned judge.
3. The case of the prosecution is based on the ocular testimony of three witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3, besides the testimony of the informant PW4 and other evidence including medical evidence produced in the trial before the court of sessions. The third learned judge, before whom the matter was placed, expressed the opinion that the appellant was rightly convicted under section 302 IPC and awarded sentence of life imprisonment. In that opin-ion a brief reference has been made to the testimony of only one of the eye-witnesses, namely PW3 Smt. Kallania. According to the prosecution she was eye-witness to the murder of Ram Prasad and not to the murder of the other deceased – Ashok Kumar. The eye-witnesses to the murder of Ashok Kumar according to the prosecu-tion case, were PW1 and PW3. PW3 is an employee of PW1. Ashok Kumar deceased was brother of PW1. PW4 is father of Ashok Kumar and PW1 Sushil Kumar.
4. In view of the opinion of third learned judge the appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The judgment and order of High Court is under challenge in this appeal. We have gone through the opinion of the third learned judge. Unfortunately, except a brief reference to the testimony of PW2, the said opinion does not show that the learned judge independently considered the testimony of other eye-witnesses, in particular – PW1 and PW3. The judges in different dissenting opinions have given detailed reasons, for and against the acceptance of version as deposed by these eye witnesses. The third learned judge, under these circumstances, was required to independently examine the matter and express his opinion. It is not permissible to only or merely indicate the agreement with one or other view without giving reasons therefor. Therefore, Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that the matter deserves to be remanded to the High Court so that it may be heard afresh by a third judge so as to make available to the parties a reasoned opinion showing that the relevant evidence and submissions that may be urged by counsel for the parties have been independently considered. We refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and make it clear that merits have not been examined by this Court which aspect would be considered by the High Court (third Hon’ble Judge) in accordance with law.
5. In view of the fact that the appellant is in custody for a long period, we request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously and, if possible, within a period of four months.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court in Crl. A. No. 2091/80 and remit the matter to the High Court in terms aforestated. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
