RAJPUT RUDA MAHA AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 05-12-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

353 
RAJPUT RUDA MAHA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
December 5, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] 
B 
Silpreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal 
Appellate 
Jurisdiction) 
Act, 
1910-S.Z(a)-Scope-Supreme Court, if could summarily dismiss 
an 
appeal 
A 
~ .under section 384 Cr. P.C. 
'f he c:ppellants ·who were charged with the offence of committing inurder 
were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. But on appeal by the State, the High 
C 
Court convicted and sentenced them. 
In their apper:l under section 2(a) of the 
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, .1970, 
this court, after a detailed analysis of the High Court's judgment and the evi-
den~ led in the case summarily dismissed the appeal under section 384 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
After the pronouncement of the judgment but before it was signed, the attcn-
D 
tion of the court was drawn to the judgment in Sita Rain 
v. 
State of U.P . 
.[1979] 2 S.C.R. 1085 which, according to them, held that the Supreme Court 
had no power to sun1n1arily dismiss an app::al under section 384, Cr. P.C. 
in 
an appeal under section 2(a) of the 1970 Act. Dismissing the appeal. 
HELD : The decision in Sita Ram v. State of U.P. is no authority regard-
ing the power of the court to summarily dismiss an apeal under section 384 of 
th~ Crimin<1l Procedure Codr. In that ca·5e neither in 
the 
application 
for 
:adducing additional grounds nor in the order of the Court directing the matter 
to be placed, before the constitution bench was there any 
reference to the 
validity of section '.';84 nor was it pleaded that the section was ullra-vire5 
the 
Constitution. [356E] 
E 
Therefore the observaion of the Court that it has "pondered over the issue 
F 
in depth" would not be a precedent binding on the court. The decision is an 
.authority for the proposition that rule 15 ( l )( c) of Order XXI of the Supreme 
Court Rules should be read down as ind:cated in that decision. 
f356F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 718 of 
I 
1979. 
G ' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11-10-1979 of the Gujarat 
· }' High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 110177. 
A. K. Trivedi and S. S. Khanduja for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
l'AZA!. Au, J. This appeal is preferred by the thrt.e accused in 
.S.essiN1s Case No. 46 of 1.976 against their conviction and sentence 
H 
/ 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
imposed upon them by the High Court under the Supreme 
Court 
(Enlargement of Criminal Appelhte Jurisdicticn) Act, 1970. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
H 
The three appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge for commit· 
ting offences punishable. under s. 302/120-B/323 /324 read with s. 34 
and 109 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one 
Karsan Kala on 19-1-1976. 
The !earned Sessions Judge acquitted. 
all the three appellants of the charges .levelled against them. The s·a~e 
of Gujarat filed an appeal against the order of Sessions Judge ')Cquit-
ting them, to the High Court of Gujarat. 
A division Bench of the 
High Court in cr;minal Appeal No. 11()/77 allowed the appeal of ~·.J..,.
the State and reversed the order of acquittal by the Learned Sessions. 
Judge and convicted them for offences under s. 302i 120-B and. sen-
tenced them to imprisonment for life. 
They were also convicted for 
fesser offences and sentence;! '.O varying term~ Of imprisonment. 
The prosecution strongly relied on 
the 
evidence of three eye-
witnesses Rata Mala, Ganesh and Ruda. 
Rata Mala was an injured 
eye-witness having receives several incised injuries. 
The evidence of 
Ruda was 
not accepted. . The complainant Savai 
Kala, 
the 
brother of the deceased 
saw 
the latter part of the occur-
rence 
when 
the 
deceased 
was 
being 
carried 
away 
by 
the 
accused. 
When 
Savai 
Kala 
questioned, the 
accused 
attacked~ 
him and he was also injured. 
The High Court in an elabo-
rate judgment after thorough'y scrutinising the evidence pf the eye- . 
witnesses accepted their testimony. 
It observed that the evidence 
of the eye-witnesses Raia Mala is most reliable and trustworthy and. ' 
so also the evidence of Ganesh. 
The High Court has referred to the 
circumstances under, which the order ,of acquittal could be interfered 
with in the light of the var:ous decisions of this Court. 
The 
High Co11ft taking into consideration the reasons given by the Ses-
sions Judge f,or not 
accepting the test

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