Summary
The Court set aside the High Court’s entire judgment in two criminal appeals because it proceeded on an incorrect account of the trial convictions and acquittals. Four accused had been acquitted of murder but were treated as already convicted of it. Both appeals were restored for rehearing, including for the non-appealing accused; the sole appellant was granted bail pending that hearing.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s mistaken treatment of the trial court’s findings vitiated its judgment.
- Whether relief should extend to the non-appealing co-accused.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe Court extended relief to all five accused because the same fundamentally erroneous appellate judgment could not be allowed to stand against the non-appealing accused. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Section 354(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court also identified the High Court’s failure to award any sentence for the murder convictions it purported to record as a fundamental defect. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
Held
- The trial court convicted Kanhai Prasad of murder and an Arms Act offence, while the other four were convicted only under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court wrongly proceeded as if all had suffered murder convictions. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17)
- There was no State appeal against the relevant acquittals or notice supporting the High Court’s adverse alteration. It also purported to convict under Sections 302/149 without awarding the required sentence, revealing failure to apply judicial mind to the actual appeals. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- An appellate order founded entirely on the wrong factual premise could not remain effective against similarly placed accused merely because only one appealed. The entire judgment was set aside and both High Court appeals restored. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- Deep Narayan Chourasia was released on bail to the trial court’s satisfaction pending the appeals. The High Court was to notify the other accused if necessary and could provide legal assistance; no view was expressed on the criminal merits. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39)
Result
Appeal allowed; common High Court judgment set aside for all five accused and both criminal appeals restored for joint rehearing on their respective merits. Sole appellant granted bail pending appeal.