The Supreme Court today set aside a judgment of the Patna High Court which had misread a judgment of the trial court to convict five persons for murder instead of one..A Bench of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari set aside the High Court judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court to be decided afresh..The facts of the case are as follows. Five persons were tried for the commission of offence of murder of Kaushalya Devi under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Munger..The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Kanhai Prasad Chourasia for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were to run concurrently..The remaining four co-accused were acquitted of the charge of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. However, the four accused were convicted for commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. They were accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years..Aggrieved by the same all of the five accused moved the Patna High Court in appeal. While Kanhai Prasad filed one criminal appeal assailing the trial court verdict, the remaining four accused jointly filed one criminal appeal..Bot these criminal appeals were clubbed together and heard by the High Court..However, the High Court proceeded on the misconception that all the five accused were convicted for murder under Section 302 of IPC. It, therefore, went on to appreciate the evidence and while dismissing both the appeals by a common judgment convicted the four accused under Section 302 along with Kanhai Prasad Chourasia..The effect of the judgment of the High Court was threefold. First, both criminal appeals stood dismissed. Second, conviction and sentence of Kanhai Prasad Choursia under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act was upheld; and Third, the remaining four accused Lukho Prasad Chourasia, Birendra Prasad Chourasia, Binod Prasad Chourasia, and Deep Narayan Chourasia were also convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act..The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court failed to apply its judicial mind and committed fundamental jurisdictional errors..The first error was that the High Court proceeded on the wrong factual premise that all the five accused have suffered conviction under Section 302/149 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act by the Additional Sessions Judge. However, only one of the five accused was convicted for Section 302..The second error was that the appellant (Deep Narayan Chourasia) along with other three accused (Lukho Prasad Chourasia, Birendra Prasad Chourasia and Binod Prasad Chourasia) were acquitted of the charge of commission of offence under Section 302/149 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge but were convicted only under Section 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years..However, as a result of the High Court’s order, they were convicted under Section 302/149 IPC without there being any appeal filed by the State against the order of their acquittal and without there being any notice of enhancement of their sentence issued by the High Court suo motu to these four accused..The third error was that the High Court failed to see that the Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted all the accused under Section 149 IPC, yet the High Court proceeded to convict all the accused under Section 149 IPC without there being any appeal filed by the State on this issue..The fourth error was that though the High Court wrongly convicted the appellant along with three others for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC, yet it did not award any sentence to any of the four accused under Section 302/149 IPC..Since the appellant and other three accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 302/149 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, yet the High Court convicted them under Section 302/149 IPC for the first time, the sentence prescribed under Section 302/149 IPC was mandatorily required to be awarded to each convicted accused as provided under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973..The Court noted all the above aspects and concluded that the High Court had committed fundamental errors..Next came the question as to whether the High Court judgment should be set aside in its entirety as only one of the five convicts had filed an appeal in Supreme Court against the High Court verdict. Answering this issue, the court held,.“It is a fundamental principle of law that an illegality committed by a Court cannot be allowed to be perpetuated against a person to a Lis merely because he did not bring such illegality to the notice of the Court and instead other person similarly placed in the Lis brought such illegality to the Court’s notice and succeed in his challenge.”.The Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court in its entirety and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. It also made it clear that the other four accused who did not file an appeal to the Supreme Court will also get the benefit of rehearing in High Court..Read the judgment below.
The Supreme Court today set aside a judgment of the Patna High Court which had misread a judgment of the trial court to convict five persons for murder instead of one..A Bench of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari set aside the High Court judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court to be decided afresh..The facts of the case are as follows. Five persons were tried for the commission of offence of murder of Kaushalya Devi under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Munger..The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Kanhai Prasad Chourasia for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were to run concurrently..The remaining four co-accused were acquitted of the charge of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. However, the four accused were convicted for commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. They were accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years..Aggrieved by the same all of the five accused moved the Patna High Court in appeal. While Kanhai Prasad filed one criminal appeal assailing the trial court verdict, the remaining four accused jointly filed one criminal appeal..Bot these criminal appeals were clubbed together and heard by the High Court..However, the High Court proceeded on the misconception that all the five accused were convicted for murder under Section 302 of IPC. It, therefore, went on to appreciate the evidence and while dismissing both the appeals by a common judgment convicted the four accused under Section 302 along with Kanhai Prasad Chourasia..The effect of the judgment of the High Court was threefold. First, both criminal appeals stood dismissed. Second, conviction and sentence of Kanhai Prasad Choursia under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act was upheld; and Third, the remaining four accused Lukho Prasad Chourasia, Birendra Prasad Chourasia, Binod Prasad Chourasia, and Deep Narayan Chourasia were also convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act..The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court failed to apply its judicial mind and committed fundamental jurisdictional errors..The first error was that the High Court proceeded on the wrong factual premise that all the five accused have suffered conviction under Section 302/149 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act by the Additional Sessions Judge. However, only one of the five accused was convicted for Section 302..The second error was that the appellant (Deep Narayan Chourasia) along with other three accused (Lukho Prasad Chourasia, Birendra Prasad Chourasia and Binod Prasad Chourasia) were acquitted of the charge of commission of offence under Section 302/149 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge but were convicted only under Section 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years..However, as a result of the High Court’s order, they were convicted under Section 302/149 IPC without there being any appeal filed by the State against the order of their acquittal and without there being any notice of enhancement of their sentence issued by the High Court suo motu to these four accused..The third error was that the High Court failed to see that the Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted all the accused under Section 149 IPC, yet the High Court proceeded to convict all the accused under Section 149 IPC without there being any appeal filed by the State on this issue..The fourth error was that though the High Court wrongly convicted the appellant along with three others for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC, yet it did not award any sentence to any of the four accused under Section 302/149 IPC..Since the appellant and other three accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 302/149 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, yet the High Court convicted them under Section 302/149 IPC for the first time, the sentence prescribed under Section 302/149 IPC was mandatorily required to be awarded to each convicted accused as provided under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973..The Court noted all the above aspects and concluded that the High Court had committed fundamental errors..Next came the question as to whether the High Court judgment should be set aside in its entirety as only one of the five convicts had filed an appeal in Supreme Court against the High Court verdict. Answering this issue, the court held,.“It is a fundamental principle of law that an illegality committed by a Court cannot be allowed to be perpetuated against a person to a Lis merely because he did not bring such illegality to the notice of the Court and instead other person similarly placed in the Lis brought such illegality to the Court’s notice and succeed in his challenge.”.The Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court in its entirety and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. It also made it clear that the other four accused who did not file an appeal to the Supreme Court will also get the benefit of rehearing in High Court..Read the judgment below.