INDRAJEET YADAV versus SANTOSH SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 19-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
73
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 73
73
INDRAJEET YADAV
v.
SANTOSH SINGH AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2022)
APRIL 19, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure – Pronouncement of final orders
without a reasoned judgment, deprecated – High Court while
allowing appeals of the accused pronounced the operative portion
of the order and set aside the judgment and order of conviction
passed by the trial court and directed the accused who was in jail
to be released, but a reasoned judgment and order was pronounced
after approximately five months – On appeal, held: Despite strong
observations made by Supreme Court as far as back in the year
1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still the practice of
pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a
reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently
has been continued – Such a practice of pronouncing the final
orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and
discouraged – On facts, a reasoned judgment was pronounced and
uploaded by the High Court after a period of almost five months –
Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
accordingly set aside – Appeals remanded to High Court for decision
afresh in accordance with law and on merits – IPC – s.302 r/w s.34.
Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. v. The State of
Maharashtra [Decision of Supreme Court dated 29-10-
2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020]; State of
Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, (1984) 1 SCC
596: [1984] 2 SCR 50 and Anil Rai v. State of Bihar,
(2001) 7 SCC 318: [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 298 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[1984] 2 SCR 50
referred to
Para 3.1
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 298
referred to
Para 3.1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.577 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1083 of 2012.
With
Criminal Appeal No.578 of 2022.
Divyesh Pratap Singh, Shashank Singh, Mohd. Asad Khan,
Anupam Chaudhary, Advs. for the Appellant.
Raj Kumar Chauhan, Ms. Sangita Chauhan, Chandan K. Pandey,
Devendra Kumar Shukla, Ms. Srishti Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1083 of 2012 and Criminal
Appeal No.1178 of 2012 by which the High Court has allowed the said
appeals preferred by the original accused and has acquitted them for the
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), the original complainant/informant has
preferred the present appeals.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – original
complainant/informant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State have drawn our attention to the fact that in the present case the
argumentsin the appeals were concluded on 30.03.2019 and the High
Court allowed the said appeals on the very day and pronounced the
operative portion of the order and set aside the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and directed the accused
who was in jail to be released, but a reasoned judgment and order was
pronounced after a period of approximately five months.
3.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – original
complainant/informant has heavily relied upon the recent decision of this
Court dated 29.10.2020 in Civil Appeal No.3564 of 2020 in the case
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
75
of Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. versus The State of Maharashtra,
by which such a practice of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned
judgment has been deprecated. It is submitted that in the aforesaid case
this Hon’ble Court considered another decision of this Court in the case
of State of Punjab & Ors. versus Jagdev Singh Talwandi, (1984)
1 SCC 596 as well as other decisions referred in para 4 of the said
decision. It is submitted that this Court also considered in detail another
decision in the case of Anil Rai versus State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC
318 by which guidelines have been issued by this Court regarding the
pronouncement of judgments and orders.
4. Applying the law laid down in the case of Balaji Baliram
Mupade (supra) and the earlier decisions of this Court in the c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.