LexRABARI GHELA JADAV versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r960 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS RABARI GHELA JADAV THE STATE OF BOMBAY [1960] (B. P. SINHA, C. J., JAFER IMAM AND J. 0. SHAH, JJ.) Criminal Appeal-If can be admitted and heard on question of sentence only-Code of Criminal Procedure (V of I898), ss. 4I8(I), 4I9, 42I, 422. The appellant was convicted under s. 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial Court. His appeal to the High Court was admitted only on the question of sentence and at the hearing the .sentence was reduced to ro years' imprisonment. On appeal by special leave the appellant contended that his appeal in the High Court could not, in Jaw, be admitted on the question of sentence only and that he was entitled to be heard on the merits of the case also. Held, that having regard to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure while an Appellate Court had power to dis- miss an appeal summarily if it considered that there was no sufficient ground for interfering, it had no power to direct the appeal to be heard on the question of sentence only. The Appellate Court, after hearing the appeal had the power in finally disposing of the appeal to reduce the sentence but was not entitled to direct the appeal to be admitted only on the ques- tion of sentence. The appellant was entitled to have his appeal heard on the merits in the High Court. The King Emperor v. Dahu Raut, (1935) LR. 62 I.A. 129, followed. Najar Sheikh v. Emperor, (1914) I.LR. 41 Cal. 606, Gaya Singh v. King Emperor, (1925) I.LR. 4 Pat. 254, and Su.dhir Kumar Neogi and Another v. Emperor, A.LR. (1942) Pat. 46, approved. Bdl Dhankor v. Emperor, (1937) I.LR. Born. 365, not appli- cable. 0RIMIN4L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 19, 1957, of the Bombay High Court at Rajkot in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1957, arising out of the Judgment and order dated August 31, 1957, of the Sessions Judge, Sorath Division, Juna- gadh, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1957. P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant. H.J. Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, for the res- pondent. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 131 . 1960, February, 26. The Judgment of the Court was delivered l5y IMAM, J.-This appeal is by special leave. The appellant was convicted under s. 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He appealed to the Bombay High Court. According to the judgment of the High Court the appeal was admitted only on the point of sentence. The High Court reduced the sentence from imprison- ment for life to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court could not, in law, admit an appeal only on the point of sentence and the appellant was entitled to have his appeal heard on the merits of his convic- tion as well. The evidence upon which the appellant was convicted was unsatisfactory and he was entitled to be acquitted. Shortly stated, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant had caused the death of Zina Hira on April 6, 1957, when the deceased was returning from an adjoining village to the village of his residence. The appellant met 'him on the way and accused him of having committed theft in the appellant's house which the deceased denied. Upon this the appellant attacked him with a stick which had iron rings round it. A number of blows were given by the appellant with this stick in consequence of which Zina Hira fell down. Although a doctor was called for from Keshod, 8 miles away, ultimately the deceased was taken to Junagadh for better medic_al treatment but died on the way in the early hours of the morning of April 7. According to the case of the appellant he was not present at the scene of the crime and pleaded not guilty to the charge. According to the judgment of the High Court the appeal of the appellant before it was admitted only on the point of sentence. It was urged that this pro- cedure adopted by the High Court was not in confor- mity with the provisions of ss. 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and Patna High Court in the ca13es of Nafar Sheikh v, Rabari Ghela jadav v. State of Bombay Imam]. Rabari Ghela Jadav v. State of Bombay Imam]. 132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1?60] Emperor (1), Gaya Singh v. King Emperor (2), Sudhir Kumar Neogi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.