DEEPAK RAJAK versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 14-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DEEPAK RAJAK 
"' 
< 
v. 
ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL 
JUNE 14, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDB.P. SINGH,JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 302 rlw s. 34 ands. 201 r/w s. 34-Conviction 
< 
under-By courts below-Co-accused acquitted by Supreme Court-
c Appellant-accused seeking benefit of acquittal of co-accused-State 
contending that he was not entitled to the benefit as he had initially not 
surrendered-Held: Accused was entitled to the benefit of acquittal of co-
accused, in view of the fact that he later surrendered. 
In the present appeal, appellant-accused who was convicted u/ss. 302 
D rlw.s. 34 and 201 r/w s. 34 IPC by courts below contended that he should be 
granted benefit of acquittal of the co-accused. Respondent-State distinguished 
the case of the appellant on the ground that he had initially not surrendered. 
.,t 
However, appellant subsequently surrendered and suffered custody of more 
than two years. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The law of giving benefit of acquittal of similarly placed co-
accused on the same set of facts and on similar accusations, may be departed 
in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition 
to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But in the present case, after 
F 
surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar 
accusations can be extended. Hence conviction and sentence recorded by courts 
r 
below is set aside. (Paras 5, 6 and 7] [1024-C-E[ 
Raja Ram and Ors. v. State of MP. [1994] 2 SCC 568; Kashmira Singh 
G 
v. State of Punjab, (1995) Supp 4 SCC 558; Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of 
A.P., [1999) 7 SCC 69; Jayantibhai Bhenkar v. State of Gi:jarat, (2002] 8 SCC 
165; Bijoy Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar, (20021 9 SCC 147; Gurucharan 
Kumar and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, [2003] 2 SCC 698; Akhil Ali Jehangir 
Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra, (2003] (2) SCC 708; Suresh Chaudhary, 
v. State of Bihar 2003 (4) SCC 128; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [2003] 
-f 
H 
1022 
" 
) 
DEEP AK RAJ AK v. ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL (PASA Y AT. J. ( 
I 023 
11 sec 241; Hem Raj and Anr. v. Seate of Punjab, (20031 12 sec 241; Vijrapu A 
Sambayya Naidu v. State of A.P. 2004 (IO) SCC 152; Mohinder Singh and 
Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors .. (2004( 1 SCC 311; Uma Shank.or Gopalik.a 
v. State of Bihar 2005 10 SCC 336 and Munno Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2005\ 
12 sec 209, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of B 
2001. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2001 of the High Court 
of Calcutta in C.A. No. 17 of 2000. 
Sanjay R. Hedge, Anand, Ail Mishra, Abhijit Sengupta for the C 
Appellants. 
-. T.C. Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Courwt was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, 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'). 
D 
2. The factual details need not detain us as undisputedly the co- E 
accused have been acquitted by this Court in Mousam Singha Roy and Ors. 
v. State of WB. [2003] 12 SCC 377]. 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 F 
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 G 
not have any relevance. He relied on the decisions in Raja Ram & Ors. v. 
State of M.P. [1994] 2 SCC 568; Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab [1995] 
. Supp 4 SCC 558); Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P. [ 1999] 7 SCC 620; 
Jayantibhai Bhenk.ar v. State of Gujarat, [2002] SCC 165; Bijoy Singh & Anr. 
v. State of Bihar, [2002] 9 SCC 147; Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. v. State of 
H 
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Rajasthan, [2003] 2 SCC 698: Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of 
Maharashtra, [2003] 2 SCC 708): Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, '[2003] 
4 SCC 128); Pawan Kumar v.State of Haryana, [2003] 11 SCC 241; Hem Raj 
& Anr. v. State of Punjab, [2003] 12 SCC 241; Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu v. 
State of A.P. (2004] IO SCC 152; Mohinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab 
B and Ors., [2004] 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.