KALU RAM AND ANR. versus STATE OF DELHI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 15-06-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KALU RAM AND ANR. 
V. 
STATE OF DELHI 
JUNE 15, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Practice and Procedure: 
Criminal appeal-Filed by accused-Dismissed by High Court on ground 
C of dismissal of criminal revision filed by informant-Held, dismissal of revision 
filed by informant cannot be ground for not discussing merits of appeal of 
accused-High Court to consider the appeal afresh on merits. 
Appellants alongwith others were prosecuted for offences under 
D Sections 302/34, 307/34 IPC etc. The trial court convicted the appellants 
u/s 304(part 1)/34 IPC and acquitted the other accused. The appellants 
questioned their conviction in appeal before the High Court. The 
informant also filed a revision petition before the High Court for 
conviction of appellants u/s 302 IPC and questioning acquittal of the other 
accused. The Hig_h Court first dismissed the revision of the informant and 
E then dismissed the appeal of the accused merely observing that in view of 
the decision in the revision petition, the appeal also was without merit. 
Aggrieved, the convicted accused filed the present appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to the High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: l. The case of the appellants was not independently 
examined. Merely beca11.se the revision petition filed by the informant was 
dismissed, that could not have been a ground for not discussing the merits 
of the appeal filed by the accused. A criminal revision petition may have 
G been without merit; but that did not make the appeal filed by the accused 
meritless. The High Court would consider appellants' case on merits 
afresh. (42-B-q 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 694 
H 
40 
' 
KALU RAM v. STATE OF DELHI (PASAYAT, J.] 
41 
of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.2005 and 12.9.2005 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. A.No. 733 of 2000 and Crl. M.A. 
Nos. 8854-55 of 2005. 
A 
M.N. Krishnamani, Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Prashant Chaudhary B 
for the Appellants. 
T.S. Doabia, Anil Katiyar and Gargi Khanna for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
The appellants question correctness of the judgment rendered by a 
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court who dismissed the appeal filed 
by the appellants simply observing that the Criminal Revision Petition No.117 
c 
of 200 I filed by the informant has been dismissed and the said revision and D 
appeal related to the same judgment. It is to be noted that the appellants as 
accused nos. 2 and 3 faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable 
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in 
short the '!PC'), along with accused no. I i.e. Tej Ram who has expired in the 
meantime, while several others some of whom have died in the meantime, 
the allegations were under Sections 147,148, 149 and 307 IPC for which the E 
accused Nos. I, 2 and 3 were also similarly charged. 
The trial court by its judgment dated 13.11.2000 held that the appellants 
Kalu Ram and Roop Chand were guilty of offence punishable under Section 
304 Part I read with Section 34 !PC and sentenced each to undergo rigorous F 
imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. I 000/- with default stipulation. 
All the other accused persons were acquitted. The informant Ranjit Singh 
filed a revision application questioning the conviction of the appellants under 
Section 304 Part 1 !PC. According to him they should have been convicted 
under Section 302 !PC and the other accused persons should not have been 
acquitted. Appellants filed an appeal questioning their conviction and sentence G 
imposed. Learned Single Judge took up the criminal revision first and held 
the same to be without merit. But without considering the merits of appeal 
filed by the present appellants dismissed the same holding that in view of the 
decision in the Criminal Revision Petition NoJ 17 of 200 I, the appeal also 
was without merit. 
H 
42 
SUPREME COURT RFPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the 
High Court is clearly erroneous. It did not hear the learned counsel for the 
appellants. On the contrary in the judgment it has been indicated as if the 
appellants were represented by Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and Ms. Mridul Aggarwal 
who in fact were the I.earned counsel for the informant Ranjit Singh in the 
B connected Criminal Revision. The s

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