JEETU @ JITENDERA & ORS. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2012] 13 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 04-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 13 S.C.R. 161 
JEETU @ JITENDERA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1986 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 04, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Appeal - Appeal against conviction - Conviction by trial 
court under the provisions of /PC - In appeal, counsel for the 
convicts not challenging their conviction, but only seeking C 
lenient sentence - High Court maintained the conviction and 
reduced the sentence - On appeal, held: It is obligation of the 
Court to decide the appeal on merits and not accept the 
concession and proceed to deal with the sentence - Such 
plea bargaining is impermif;sible in law and defeats the 
D 
fundamental purpose of the justice delivery system - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XX/A - ss. 265A and 
265L (as inserted by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005) 
- Plea Bargaining - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147 and 327 I 
149. 
E 
The appellants-accused were convicted u/ss. 147 
and 327/149 IPC by the trial court and were sentenced to 
three months R1 for the offence u/s. 147 and to three 
years RI for the offence u/s. 327 IPC. In appeal, the 
counsel for the accused did not challenge the conviction, 
F 
but sought for lenient sentence. High Court maintained 
the conviction, but reduced the sentence from 3 years RI 
to 1 year RI. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
G 
Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. In an appeal against conviction, the 
appellate court is under duty and obligation to look into 
161 
H 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 13 S.C.R. 
A the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an 
independent conclusion. Even if the High Court chooses 
to dismiss the appeal summarily, some brief reasons 
should be given so as to enable this Court to judge 
whether or not the case requires any further examination. 
B If no reasons are given, the task of this Court becomes 
onerous inasmuch as this Court would be required to 
perform the function of the High Court itself by 
reappraising the entire evidence resulting in serious 
harassment and expense to the accused. [Paras 16 and 
c 19] [168-C-D; 171-C] 
Dagadu v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 1218; 
Govinda Kadtuji Kadam and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra 
AIR 1970 SC 1033: 1970 (3) SCR 525; Sita Ram and Ors. 
v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 745: 1979 (2) 
D SCR 1085; Padam Singh v. State of U.P. 2000 (1) SCJ 143 
- relied on. 
2. Sometimes the accused enters into a plea 
bargaining. The counsel for the appellants before the 
E High Court did not challenge the conviction but sought 
imposition of a lenient sentence. The High Court has not 
made any effort to satisfy its conscience and accepted 
the concession given by the counsel in a routine manner. 
When a convicted person prefers an appeal, he has the 
F legitimate expectation to be dealt with by the Courts in 
accordance with law. He has intrinsic faith in the criminal 
justice dispensation system and it is the sacred duty of 
the adjudicatory system to remain alive to the said faith. 
That apart, he has embedded trust in his counsel that he 
G shall put forth his case to the best of his ability assailing 
the conviction and to do full justice to the case. That 
apart, a counsel is expected to assist the Courts in 
reaching a correct conclusion. Therefore, it is the 
obligation of th.e Court to decide the appeal on merits and 
H not accept the concession and proceed to deal with the 
JEETU@ JITENDERA & ORS. v. STATE OF 
163 
CHHATTISGARH 
sentence, for the said mode and method defeats the 
A 
fundamental purpose of the justice delivery system. The 
same being impermissible in law should not be talcen 
resort to. It should be borne in mind that a convict who 
has been imposed substantive sentence is deprived of 
his liberty, the stem of life that should not ordinarily be 
B 
stenosed, and hence, it is the duty of the Court to see that 
the cause of justice is subserved with serenity in 
accordance with the established principles of law. [Paras 
17, 18 and 21] [168-D; 169-F-G; 172-B-G] 
Thippaswamy v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 747; 
C 
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika (1999) 8 SCC 638: 1999 
(4) Suppl. SCR 239; Madan/al Ramchandra Daga v. State 
of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 1267: 1968 SCR 34; Murlidhar 
Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 3 SCC 684: 
D 
1977 (1) SCR 1; Ganeshmal Jashraj v. Govt. of Gujarat 
(1980) 1 SCC 363: 1980 ( 1 ) SCR 1114; Dilip S. Dahanukar 
v. Kotak Mahind

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.