Supreme Court: In a case wherein twenty persons were tried for rioting under Sections 147 and 148 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC') and out of these, ten people who were not acquitted by the Sessions Court and the Patna High Court (‘High Court'), had appealed before this Court, the 3-Judges Bench of M.C. Mahajan, Chandrasekhara Aiyar and Vivian Bose*, JJ., held that as the counsel for the appellants did not challenge the analysis of the Sessions Court in regard to their individual cases before the High Court in appeal, thus, this Court could not permit the omission to be agitated as a grievance in special appeal. The Supreme Court further opined that it was satisfied that there was material against each appellant separately which the courts of fact were entitled to act upon. Therefore, the Supreme Court opined that it was sufficient to say that there was ample evidence against each appellant separately on which the courts of fact could act and convict. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and observed that the sentences were light considering the serious nature of the offence committed.
Background
In the present case, a serious communal disturbance broke out on 8-5-1949 in the village of Rampur and as a result, one man, Sukhroo Gope (deceased), lost his life and another Chotu Gope was severely injured. Thereafter, twenty persons were tried for rioting under Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC coupled with offences varying from murder (Section 302), grievous hurt (Section 326) and hurt caused by dangerous weapons (Section 324) read with Section 149, to an offence under Section 201. Out of these twenty people, nine were acquitted in the Sessions Court, ten were convicted and one died before the judgment. The High Court upheld nine of the convictions and altered the conviction and sentence in one case and the remaining ten people who were not acquitted had appealed before the Supreme Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Supreme Court noted that as the reasons and conclusions of the High court tallied with those of the Sessions Court, the High Court adopted the not altogether satisfactory practice for a court of appeal, namely, merely saying that it agreed with the court below. Thus, the Supreme Court held that this practice was not satisfactory because it was not always possible for a court of higher appeal to be satisfied in such a case that an independent conclusion had been reached. The Supreme Court further opined that it did not suggest that reasons given in a lower court should be copied or repeated but, unlike a court of revision or special appeal, a court of ordinary appeal ought to give clear indication of the evidence it relied on. However, in the present case, the Supreme Court opined that though the judgment was not an ideal one, the evidence had been scrutinized and that an independent conclusion had been reached.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court realized the necessity of examining the case against each appellant separately and stated that it had done so, though for the reason given by it, it did not set out its analysis on paper. The Supreme Court opined that non-fulfillment of the duty of the appellate court to examine case against each appellant separately, would amount to clear error of a substantial character because an appellate court was not relieved of the necessity of examining individual cases however careful the judgment of the lower court might have been.
The Supreme Court held that as the counsel for the appellants did not challenge the analysis of the Sessions Court in regard to their individual cases before the High Court in appeal, thus, this Court could not permit the omission to be agitated as a grievance in special appeal. The Supreme Court further opined that it was satisfied that there was material against each appellant separately which the courts of fact were entitled to act upon.
The Supreme Court noted that Appellant 1 had been identified by Chotu Gope, whom he assaulted personally with a saif, and by six others who saw him do it; in addition, at least four more identify him as having been in the mob. A bloodstained lathi was also recovered from his house. Moreover, his presence at the scene had been admitted in the written statement. The Supreme Court further noted that the other appellants who assaulted the deceased Sukhroo with a saif, were seen doing this by many witnesses, and others identified them as having been in the mob.
The Supreme Court stated that as it was not an ordinary court of appeal, it was not necessary for it to specify who those several witnesses were. Therefore, the Supreme Court opined that it was sufficient to say that there was ample evidence against each appellant separately on which the courts of fact could act and convict. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and observed that the sentences were light considering the serious nature of the offence committed.
[Manzoor Khan v. State of Bihar, (1952) 1 SCC 432, decided on 02-04-1952]
Note: Duty/Powers of appellate court under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC'), contains elaborate provisions on appeals against a judgment or order of the criminal courts. The appellate process provides an opportunity to correct any possible factual or legal errors in a judgment or order. Section 386 of the CrPC defines the powers of the Appellate Courts in dealing with appeals. In exercise of appellate power under Section 386, the High Court has full power to reverse an order of acquittal and if the accused are found guilty, they can be sentenced according to law. The CrPC gives ample powers to the Courts to alter or amend a charge, whether by the trial Court or by the appellate Court, provided that the accused is not to face a charge for a new offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in the dark about the charge or in not giving a full opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him, on the charge finally preferred against him. The Court of appeal possesses full power to go into the entire evidence and all relevant circumstances to arrive at its own conclusion about the guilt or the innocence of the accused. Moreover, the High Court orders of conviction issued while exercising original criminal jurisdiction have the right to be appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 374 of the CrPC.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: Kamla Kanta Varma, Senior Advocate (Narain Andley and Saiyid Fazl Ali, Advocates with him)
For the Respondent: H.J. Umrigar, Advocate
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vivian Bose
