Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

ALIJAN NANHE PEHALWAN QURESHIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation
1980 INSC 211
Decided
10 November 1980
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

The Supreme Court held that a High Court must give a reasoned judgment in murder appeals, but after allowing the parties to review the record and hearing submissions, it found no error and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Summary

Alijan Nanhe Pehalwan Qureshi was convicted of murder under s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. The High Court affirmed the conviction but issued a judgment without any reasoning. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, which held that in serious offences like murder, the appellate court must give a reasoned judgment addressing material facts and law. The Supreme Court, invoking Article 136, ordered that the record be sent back for the parties to peruse and make submissions as if hearing a regular appeal, rather than immediately setting aside the High Court's order. After a brief hearing, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, leaving the life sentence intact.

Issues considered

  • Whether a High Court judgment affirming a life sentence for murder must contain reasons of fact and law.
  • Whether the Supreme Court should set aside a blank appellate judgment or remit the case for a reasoned hearing.
  • Whether the petitioner demonstrated any flaw in the trial court’s assessment of evidence warranting relief.

Legislation cited

Subjects

murderappealreasoned judgmentnatural justicelife imprisonmentspecial leave petitioncriminal procedure

Judgment

U94


A                  ALIJAN NANHE PEHALWAN QURESHI
                                           v.
                          ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                 November 10, 1980
B
                   [V. R. KRISHNA IYER & A. D. KOSHAL, JJ]

         Procedure-High Court's judgment-In cases where severe 5entl'11ce had
     been inflicted by the trial court, High Court must give a reasoned judgment.
                                                                                      __j
         In so serious a crime as murder where so severe a sentence as life
c     imprisonment has been inflicted by the trial court and the appeai is as of
     right, the High Court must indicate in a reasoned judgment that it has applied
     its mind to the material questions of fact and Jaw. A judgment may be brief
      but not a blank especially in a situation such as this. [1194 F-G]

           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :             Special Leave Petition
D
      (Crl.) No. 1620 of l.980.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 13-11-1979 of the Bombay
     High Court in Criminal Appeal No 1310 of 1979.

          Pramod Swarup for the Petitioner.
E         M. C. Bhandare and M. N. Shroff for the Respondenr.
          The Order of the Court was delivered by

          KRISHNA lyER J.-We were not happy at the disposal by the
  • High Court of a case under s. 302 I.P.C. without a speaking order.
F   After all in so serious a crime as murder, where so severe a sentence
    as life imprisonment has been inflicted by the trial court and the ap·
    peal is· as of right, the High Court must indicate in a reasoned judg-
    ment that it has applied its mind to the material questions of fact
    and law. A judgment may be brief but not a blank, especially in a
G situation such as this. For this reason we should have straightaway
    set aside the judgment of the High Court and sent .it back for fresh
    hearing, but under Artide 136 where justice is the paramount consi-
    deration we wanted to reduce the delay in the proceedings since there
    is a sentence of life imprisonment on the petitioner so we directed
H   that the original record be sent for so that counsel on both sides may
          ALIJAN NANHE PEHALWAN QURESHI V. MAHARASHTRA                    l.1!9JS
                            (Krishna Iyer, !.)
have the opportunity to peruse the entire case records and make
submissions to us as if we were hearing the appeal in the regular
course. Counsel have had that facility and have made submissions
after perusal of the materials. After a brief hearing counsel for the
                                                                                    ..
petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the trial court's judgment
was vitrated by any flaw in appreciation of evidence or assessment            B
of probabilities. We, therefore, dismiss the Special Leave Petition
after satisfying ourselves that natural just.ice has had its full play.
Dismissed.


P.B.R.                                             Petition dismissed .




                                                                      •


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "murder"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.