STATE OF M.P. versus SUGHAR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 159 · Decided: 09-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, S.H. KAPADIA, ALTAMAS KABIR, R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 159 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
SUGHAR SINGH & ORS. 
(Curative Petition (Crl.) Nos.7-8 of 2009) 
MARCH 9, 2010 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., S.H. KAPADIA, ALTAMAS 
KABIR AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
Articles 142 rlw Or. XL VII, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 -
C 
Curative petition - In the appeals filed by State against 
acquittal, impleading only four out of eight accused, Supreme 
Court, by its judgment dated 7. 11. 2008, reversing the acquittal 
of all the accused including those who were not impleaded 
as respondents and were not issued notice - HELD: There 
D 
is a serious violation of principles of natural justice as the 
acquittal of all the accused has been set aside even though 
only four of them were respondents before the Court and 
others were not heard - Judgement dated 7.11.2008 is 
recalled - The accused-respondents directed to be released, 
E 
if in custody - The appeals are restored to. the file for being 
heard afresh with a direction that the said four accused be 
impleaded as respondents and all the accused be served with 
notice afresh - Practice and Procedure - Supreme Court 
Rules, 1966 - Or. XL VII - Natural justice - Judgement -
F 
Recalled. 
·CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Curative Petition (Crl.) Nos.7-8 of 2009 
IN 
R.P. (CRL.) D 379!~ of 2008. 
1. 
State of M.P. v. Sughar Singh & Ors. (2008) 1 SCR 725. 
159 
G 
H 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
IN 
Criminal Appeal Nos.1362-1363 of 2004. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 3.1.2003 of the ,High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur bench at Gwalior in 
8 Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 1991 and 253 of 1991. 
c 
WI™ 
Cur. Pet. (CRL.) NO.D 6924/2009 IN R.P.(CRL.)D 37915 of 
2008 In Crl. A Nos.1362-1363 of 2004. 
Jai Prakash Pandey, Niraj Kr. Mishra for the appearing 
parties. 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
o 
The Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in the State of Madhya 
Pradesh tried eight accused persons for the offence under 
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the l.P.C., Section 326 
read with Section 149 of the l.P.C. and other allied offences. 
All the accused were found guilty of the offences charged 
E against them and for the main offence punishable under 
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the l.P.C. all were 
convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and 
for the remaining offences they were sentenced to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment. The accused persons preferred two 
appeals before the High Court of Judicature of Madhya 
F Pradesh, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos.242/1991 and 253 of 
1991. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh by its judgment dated 3.1.2003 set aside the 
conviction and sentence imposed against the accused who 
were the appellants before it. Aggrieved by the same, the State 
G preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.1362-1363 of 2004. Though 
there were eight accused persons, only four accused were 
arrayed as party respondents in the said appeals namely, 
Sughar, Laxman, Onkar and Ramesh. Other accused, namely, 
Bhoja, Raghubir, Puran and Balbir were not impleaded as 
H 
STATE OF M.P. v. SUGHAR SINGH & ORS. 
161 
respondents in these Criminal Appeals and consequently 
A 
notices were not issued to them. This Court, by judgment on 
7th November, 2008 in the aforesaid Criminal Appeals, 
reversed the acquittal of the accused by the High Court and 
found them guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304 
Part-II read with Section 149 of the l.P.C. and sentenced them 
B 
to undergo imprisonment for a period of six years. The 
conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under 
Section 148 as also Section 326 read with the Section 149 of 
the l.P.C. and the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court in 
regard to the said offences was upheld by this Court. 
c 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The 
respondent State, though served with a notice through standing 
counsel, has not chosen to enter appearance. 
These Curative Petitions have been filed by accused No.2 o 
(Raghubir) and by accused no.4 and 5 (Sughar Singh and 
Laxman) on the ground that acquittal of Bhoja, Raghubir, Puran 
and Balbir have been reversed without affording an opportunity 
of being heard. We see that there is serious violation of 
principles of natural justice as the acquittal of all the accused 
has been set aside even though only four of them were made 
respondents before this Court and the others were not heard. 
We are, therefore, constraine
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.