MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 20-12-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
488 
MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
December 20, 1984 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Sections 377, 378 and 366. 
Appeal against acquittal by State Governinent to High Court-Powers of 
appellate COllrt-What are-High CoArl final court of facts-Correctness and 
acceptability of evidence-Duty-To be satisfied-Open to re-appraise e,ide11ce 
and decide appeal or order re-trial-Not proper to remand case to trial court 
for writing a fresh judgmint-Proper direction by Govern1nen1 to file appeal-
Existence of·-Hi'gk Court whether competent to go- tlcrou!h tile saRcti•11 ft/,. 
D 
The four appellants in the appeal were triod by the Sc5sions Judie 
E 
~ 
F 
, 
G 
for offences under Sections 302/34 I. P. C. and also under Section 27 of 
the Arms Act 1959. 
The· court convicted the first appellant under Section 
304 Part I I. P. C. and sentenced him to 1 years rigorous imprisonment, 
and acquitted the others. 
The first appellant filed an appeal before the High Court and the 
State Government filed appeals against thC acquittal of tho other appellants 
. 
. 
and also of the first appellar.t under Section 302 I. P. C. 
The Hi11h Court 
came to a general conclus.ion that the judgment of the Sessions Judge was 
not in accordance with law and had not dealt with some of the points, raised 
in the appeals, and remanded the case back to the trial court for writing· a 
fresh and proper judgment. 
As far as the acquitted accused were concerned 
although tho appeals were filed by the Public Prosecutor as directed by the 
State Government, the High Court held that there was no proper direction 
by the Government for filing the appeals except in the case of the first 
appellant. 
Allowing the Appeals to this Court, 
HELD: Assuming that the High Court was right in thinking the 
judgment suffered from some infirmity and there were certain facts which 
were not taken into consideration they would not be grounds for 'remao~ 
ding the case to the Sessiolls Court to writ a proper judgment. 
Tho High 
Court .itself was a final court of facts and it was its duty to satisfy itself 
regarding the correctness and acceptability of the evidence. 
It was entirely 
open to the High Court to re·appraise the evidence once again to consider 
the facts overlooked by the Sessions Judge and to have decided the" appeal 
.. 
MOHINDER SINGH v. PUNJAB (Fazal All, J.) 
489 
itself instead of remandina: tho case to the Sessions Court. 
The proper 
order in such a case should be either to decide the case itself or to send it 
for re-trial. The question of re-trial does not arise in the instant case. 
The order of the Hia:h Court is set aside and the High Court is directed to 
re·hear the appeals on merits according to law. [4910-F] 
2. Whenever, tho Governmeat seeks opinion it consults various agencies 
namely the Advocate-General, Public Prosecutor, Legal Remembrancer and 
others and thereafter the order is p•ssed by the Government through the 
Secretory incbarge. [490E] 
In the instance case, it is not in dispute that the Public Prosecutor was 
directed by the Under Secretary to the Government in charge to file appi:als 
against all the appellants. 
A clenr direction had been given to the Public 
Prosecutor to file appeals against all the four accused and as regards the 
first appellant against his acquitt;:il under Section 302 IPC. The High Court 
at the instance of the acquitted <!.ccused tri ~d to re-open the matter in ordor 
to find out the mariner and various stages through which the sanction to file 
an appeal was cbanaliscd. 
This was nol «t all proper for the Hii;h Court 
to do. [490E; G; P] 
CRIMINAL APPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 
335-36 and 523 of 1982. 
From the Judgment and order dated the 31st of March, 1982 
of the High Court of Punjlb and Haryana in Criminal Revision 
A 
B 
c 
D 
No. 977 of 1980. 
E 
R·L. Kohli, M.K. Dua, S.K. Mehta, P.N. 
for the appellants. 
S.K. Bagga for the respondents. 
Puri and R.C. Kohli 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL Au, J. 
In these appeals by special leave four persons, 
namely, Mohinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Bharpur Singh and 
Jagvinder Singh were tried by the Sessions Judge for offences under 
Sections 302/34 and 307/34 !PC and also under Section 27 of the 
Arms Act. 
After recording the entire evidence the trial court 
convicted Mohinder Singh under section 304 Part I !PC and sen-
tenced him to 7 yea

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