2022 (1) TMI 1432 - HC - Indian Laws

Murder - singular charge under Section 307/149 of IPC was framed for attempting to kill Bhanupratap Singh and Ajab Singh, instead of framing charges on two counts - HELD THAT - The evidence which was led in the Trial of co-accused Dilip cannot be read in favor of the Appellant Surajbhan. Further, on 6-12-2018 and 16-4-2018, Bhanupratap Singh (P.W.1) and Ajab Singh (P.W.2) respectively, were being examined for co-accused Dilip only and not for the Appellant Surajbhan. Therefore, the Appellant Surajbhan would not get benefit of any word uttered by Bhanupratap Singh (P.W.1) and Ajab Singh (P.W.2) in their examination on 6-12- 2018 and 16-4-2018 respectively. However, it is surprising, that although the Appellant Surajbhan Singh was being tried for offence under Section 302/149 of IPC for committing murder of Pahalwan and Darshan Singh, but the Trial Court, without giving any finding in respect of murder of Darshan Singh, convicted him only for the murder of Pahalwan - the Trial Court has passed an incomplete judgment. Since, no appeal has been filed by the State in this regard, then whether this Court is helpless or can remand the matter for writing a judgment in respect of charge under Section 302/149 of IPC which was framed for murder of Darshan Singh as well as in respect of charge under Section 307/149 of IPC which was framed for making an attempt to kill Ajab Singh (P.W.2)? - HELD THAT - Although no appeal has been filed by the State, but this Court is not reversing the judgment passed by the Trial Court. It is merely found that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is incomplete - In the present scenario, this Court cannot issue notice to the Appellant for enhancement of sentence as no sentence has been awarded by the Trial Court on above mentioned two charges. Further, this Court cannot remand the matter for re-trial, as no procedural lapse has been committed by the Trial Court, but only an incomplete judgment has been passed. The appeal is continuation of Trial. An appeal thus is a rehearing of the main matter and the appellate court can reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire evidence oral as well as documentary and can come to its own conclusion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion, that even in absence of any appeal by State, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can remand the matter for writing the judgment in respect of charge under Section 302/149 of IPC for murder of Darshan Singh and under Section 307/149 for making an attempt on the life of Ajab Singh (P.W.2) also, which was erroneously left by the Trial Court. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reliability of witnesses.
2. Completeness of the Trial Court's judgment.
3. Appellate Court's powers and procedures.
4. Remand and directions for re-judgment.
5. Administrative inquiry into judicial conduct.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reliability of Witnesses:
The Appellant challenged the reliability of Bhanupratap Singh (P.W.1) and Ajab Singh (P.W.2), arguing they were unreliable, related, and interested witnesses. The Appellant pointed out discrepancies between their testimonies and the medical evidence, such as the presence of rigor mortis indicating earlier deaths and the inconsistency in the number of gunshots fired. Additionally, the Appellant noted contradictions in Bhanupratap Singh's statements regarding the retrieval of Kedar's white shirt.

2. Completeness of the Trial Court's Judgment:
The High Court found the Trial Court's judgment incomplete. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302/149 IPC for the murder of Pahalwan Singh and under Section 307/149 IPC for attempting to kill Bhanupratap Singh (P.W.1). However, it did not provide findings on the charges under Section 302/149 IPC for the murder of Darshan Singh and Section 307/149 IPC for the attempt to kill Ajab Singh (P.W.2). The judgment was silent on these counts, rendering it incomplete.

3. Appellate Court's Powers and Procedures:
The High Court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in Karan Singh vs. State of M.P. and A.T. Mydeen vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department, emphasizing that evidence from one trial cannot be used to determine the culpability of an accused in another trial. The High Court reiterated that each case must be decided based on its evidence, and the appellate court's power is confined to the evidence available in the trial court's record.

4. Remand and Directions for Re-judgment:
The High Court decided to remand the case to the Trial Court for writing a complete judgment regarding the charges under Section 302/149 IPC for Darshan Singh's murder and Section 307/149 IPC for the attempt to kill Ajab Singh (P.W.2). The High Court directed that the findings related to the charges for Pahalwan Singh's murder and the attempt to kill Bhanupratap Singh (P.W.1) remain untouched. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind, was instructed to assign the case to a different Additional Sessions Judge.

5. Administrative Inquiry into Judicial Conduct:
The High Court ordered an administrative inquiry into whether the Presiding Judge was negligent or influenced by extraneous considerations in passing the incomplete judgment. The District Judge (Inspection), Gwalior, was tasked with conducting this inquiry and reporting to the Chief Justice for potential administrative action.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the incomplete judgment and sentence dated 9-7-2021 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, Distt. Bhind, and remanded the case for limited purposes. The Appellant was ordered to remain in jail, and the Trial Court was directed to complete the judgment within three months. The High Court also mandated an administrative inquiry into the Presiding Judge's conduct, to be completed within two months. The Criminal Appeal was disposed of accordingly.