2012 (12) TMI 1226 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and Sentence under Sections 147 and 327/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Legal sustainability of the conviction without framing charges under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Appropriateness of the High Court's handling of the appeal focusing solely on the sentence.

Summary:

Issue 1: Conviction and Sentence under Sections 147 and 327/149 of the Indian Penal Code
The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal against the High Court of Chattisgarh's judgment, which affirmed the appellant's conviction under Sections 147 and 327/149 of the Indian Penal Code but reduced the sentence from three years to one year for the second offence and maintained three months for the first offence, with both sentences to run concurrently. The case originated from an FIR lodged by Aarif Hussain, alleging that the accused demanded Rs. 500 for liquor, assaulted him, and took him to Awanti Vihar railway crossing. The trial court found the accused guilty of the mentioned offences and sentenced them accordingly.

Issue 2: Legal Sustainability of the Conviction without Framing Charges under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code
The appellant's counsel argued that the conviction under Section 327 was unsustainable as no charge was framed under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's failure to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt was also highlighted. The respondent's counsel contended that framing a charge under Section 383 was not necessary for proving an offence under Section 327 and that the material on record sufficiently proved the offences.

Issue 3: Appropriateness of the High Court's Handling of the Appeal Focusing Solely on the Sentence
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not address the legal sustainability of the conviction but only considered the quantum of the sentence based on the counsel's submission. The Court emphasized that an appeal against conviction requires the appellate court to examine the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including Dagadu v. State of Maharashtra and Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka, to underline that the appellate court must provide reasons for its decisions and cannot rely solely on plea bargaining or concessions by counsel.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court failed to satisfy its conscience and accepted the counsel's concession in a routine manner, which is impermissible in law. The Court emphasized the duty of the appellate court to decide appeals on merits and not merely on concessions regarding the sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the case to the High Court for a decision on merits in accordance with the law. The appellants were ordered to be released on bail pending the final decision in the appeal.