9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Correctness of judgment rendered by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal. 2. Appellants challenging their conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC and seeking conviction under Section 302 IPC. 3. Error in High Court's approach by not hearing the learned counsel for the appellants. 4. Merits of the appeal not independently examined. 5. Setting aside the High Court's order and remanding the case for fresh consideration. 6. Request for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the High Court. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court addressed the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. The appellants, accused nos. 2 and 3, faced trial for offenses under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with other accused persons. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 304 Part I IPC, while others were acquitted. The informant filed a revision application questioning the conviction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Single Judge without considering the merits of the appellants' appeal. 2. The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC and sought conviction under Section 302 IPC. The Single Judge's decision was criticized for not granting the appellants an opportunity to challenge the legality of the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court found the appellants' contentions to be correct, emphasizing that the dismissal of the informant's revision petition did not render the appeal meritless, and both matters should have been independently examined. 3. The Supreme Court noted an error in the High Court's approach, highlighting that the appellants' case was not independently examined, and the summary disposal of the appeal without granting an opportunity to substantiate their challenge was improper. The High Court's failure to hear the learned counsel for the appellants was deemed a clear error, as indicated by the Supreme Court. 4. Considering the above grounds, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for a fresh consideration on merits. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of independently evaluating the appellants' appeal, irrespective of the outcome of the informant's revision petition, to ensure a fair and just decision. 5. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent of setting aside the High Court's order and sending the case back for reevaluation. The appellants, who were on bail during the appeal's pendency, were advised to inform the High Court about their status and seek any necessary interim orders available in law, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal, which dated back to the year 2000. 6. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on rectifying the procedural errors and ensuring a fair consideration of the appellants' appeal by remanding the case to the High Court for a fresh examination on merits, while also stressing the importance of expeditious disposal of the appeal.
|
