Sanat K. Mandal & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2000
Petitioner: Sanat K. Mandal & Ors.
Respondent: State of Bihar
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2000
Judges: A.P. MISRA & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 29, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302/147, 149 – Conviction based on postmortem report of
another person in another case. Held, to be bad in law. Matter remitted to High Court for considering the aspect and circumstances in which it happened. (Paras 4,5)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302/147, 149 – Conviction based on postmortem report of
another person in another case. Held, to be bad in law. Matter remitted to High Court for considering the aspect and circumstances in which it happened. (Paras 4,5)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order of the High Court in appeal confirming the conviction by the sessions judge of appellant no. 1 under section 302 read with section 149, section 147 I.P.C. read with sections 343/354 IPC and appellant nos. 2 & 3 further under section 323 I.P.C.
3. The main submission for the appellant is that conviction is based on postmortem report of another accused of the same name arising out of a different case. Thus conviction cannot be sustained. This aspect has not been dealt with by the courts below. With regard to this, specific ground taken by the appellant is :
“As is evident from a bare perusal of the postmortem report exhibited in the trial, the said postmortem is in regard to Sewari P.S. case no. 34/84. It is thus evident that a postmortem report in regard to another person has been exhibited instead of the report of the instant case and the petitioners have been convicted on that basis. It is the most respectful submission of the petitioners that the whole basis of the prosecution being wrong, the petitioners ought not to have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court.”
4. If this is a truth, it is a serious matter. How conviction of any of the accused could be based on the postmortem report of another case of another person. However, since this scrutiny was not done by the High Court though, according to the appellant it was raised before the High Court, we feel it appropriate, the matter may be examined afresh by the High Court including the circumstances under which it was done, in case the High Court finds that another post mortem is brought into this case, consequential order be passed.
5. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order by the High Court and remand the case for expeditious disposal of this case with liberty to the appellant to apply for bail.
6. The registrar of the High Court will place this case before the Hon’ble chief justice for fixing a date in this case preferably within two months from the date of this order for placing it before an appropriate bench.
7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order of the High Court in appeal confirming the conviction by the sessions judge of appellant no. 1 under section 302 read with section 149, section 147 I.P.C. read with sections 343/354 IPC and appellant nos. 2 & 3 further under section 323 I.P.C.
3. The main submission for the appellant is that conviction is based on postmortem report of another accused of the same name arising out of a different case. Thus conviction cannot be sustained. This aspect has not been dealt with by the courts below. With regard to this, specific ground taken by the appellant is :
“As is evident from a bare perusal of the postmortem report exhibited in the trial, the said postmortem is in regard to Sewari P.S. case no. 34/84. It is thus evident that a postmortem report in regard to another person has been exhibited instead of the report of the instant case and the petitioners have been convicted on that basis. It is the most respectful submission of the petitioners that the whole basis of the prosecution being wrong, the petitioners ought not to have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court.”
4. If this is a truth, it is a serious matter. How conviction of any of the accused could be based on the postmortem report of another case of another person. However, since this scrutiny was not done by the High Court though, according to the appellant it was raised before the High Court, we feel it appropriate, the matter may be examined afresh by the High Court including the circumstances under which it was done, in case the High Court finds that another post mortem is brought into this case, consequential order be passed.
5. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order by the High Court and remand the case for expeditious disposal of this case with liberty to the appellant to apply for bail.
6. The registrar of the High Court will place this case before the Hon’ble chief justice for fixing a date in this case preferably within two months from the date of this order for placing it before an appropriate bench.
7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
