Holding

The dismissal of a revision petition does not preclude an independent examination of the appeal; the appeal must be considered on its merits.

Summary

The appellants Kalu Ram and others were convicted by the trial court under Section 304(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. They filed an appeal against the conviction, while an informant filed a criminal revision petition seeking conviction under Section 302 IPC and challenging the acquittal of other accused. The Delhi High Court dismissed the informant's revision and, without hearing the appellants, dismissed their appeal on the ground that the revision had been rejected. The appellants contended that their appeal required an independent examination of its merits. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of a revision petition cannot be a basis for refusing to consider the merits of an appeal filed by the accused. Consequently, the High Court's order dismissing the appeal was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on its merits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed expeditious disposal by the High Court.

Issues considered

Whether the dismissal of a criminal revision petition filed by an informant can be a ground for dismissing the appeal of the accused without hearing the appeal on its merits.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 304(1), s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

criminal appealrevision petitionappeal meritsIPCSection 304Section 302procedural lawHigh CourtSupreme Court

Judgment

KALU RAM AND ANR.
'
A
V.

STATE OF DELHI

JUNE 15, 2006

B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]

Practice and Procedure:

Criminal appeal-Filed by accused-Dismissed by High Court on ground
C ofdismissal ofcriminal revision filed by informant-Held, dismissal ofrevision
filed by informant cannot be ground for not discussing merits of appeal of
accused-High Court to consider the appeal afresh on merits.

Appellants alongwith others were prosecuted for offences under
D Sections 302/34, 307/34 IPC etc. The trial court convicted the appellants
u/s 304(part 1)/34 IPC and acquitted the other accused. The appellants
questioned their conviction in appeal before the High Court. The
informant also filed a revision petition before the High Court for
conviction of appellants u/s 302 IPC and questioning acquittal of the other
accused. The Hig_h Court first dismissed the revision of the informant and
E then dismissed the appeal of the accused merely observing that in view of
the decision in the revision petition, the appeal also was without merit.
Aggrieved, the convicted accused filed the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to the High
Court, the Court
F
HELD: l. The case of the appellants was not independently
examined. Merely beca11.se the revision petition filed by the informant was
dismissed, that could not have been a ground for not discussing the merits
of the appeal filed by the accused. A criminal revision petition may have
G been without merit; but that did not make the appeal filed by the accused
meritless. The High Court would consider appellants' case on merits
afresh. (42-B-q

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 694

H 40
KALU RAM v. STATE OF DELHI (PASAYAT, J.] 41
of 2006. A
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.2005 and 12.9.2005 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. A.No. 733 of 2000 and Crl. M.A.
Nos. 8854-55 of 2005.

M.N. Krishnamani, Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Prashant Chaudhary B
for the Appellants.

T.S. Doabia, Anil Katiyar and Gargi Khanna for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
c
The appellants question correctness of the judgment rendered by a
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court who dismissed the appeal filed
by the appellants simply observing that the Criminal Revision Petition No.117
of 200 I filed by the informant has been dismissed and the said revision and D
appeal related to the same judgment. It is to be noted that the appellants as
accused nos. 2 and 3 faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short the '!PC'), along with accused no. I i.e. Tej Ram who has expired in the
meantime, while several others some of whom have died in the meantime,
the allegations were under Sections 147,148, 149 and 307 IPC for which the E
accused Nos. I, 2 and 3 were also similarly charged.

The trial court by its judgment dated 13.11.2000 held that the appellants
Kalu Ram and Roop Chand were guilty of offence punishable under Section
304 Part I read with Section 34 !PC and sentenced each to undergo rigorous F
imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. I 000/- with default stipulation.
All the other accused persons were acquitted. The informant Ranjit Singh
filed a revision application questioning the conviction of the appellants under
Section 304 Part 1 !PC. According to him they should have been convicted
under Section 302 !PC and the other accused persons should not have been
acquitted. Appellants filed an appeal questioning their conviction and sentence G
imposed. Learned Single Judge took up the criminal revision first and held
the same to be without merit. But without considering the merits of appeal
filed by the present appellants dismissed the same holding that in view of the
decision in the Criminal Revision Petition NoJ 17 of 200 I, the appeal also
was without merit.
H
42 SUPREME COURT RFPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the '
High Court is clearly erroneous. It did not hear the learned counsel for the
appellants. On the contrary in the judgment it has been indicated as if the
appellants were represented by Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and Ms. Mridul Aggarwal
who in fact were the I.earned counsel for the informant Ranjit Singh in the
B connected Criminal Revision. The summary disposal of the appeal is also not
proper as no opportunity was granted to the appellants to substantiate their
challenge to the legality of the judgment of the trial court.

We find that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant to
be correct. The case of :he appellants was not independently examined. Merely ' .
C because the Revision Petition filed by the informant was dismissed that could
not have been a ground for not discussing the merits of the appeal filed by
the appellants. A Criminal Revision Petition may have been without merit;
but that did not make the appeal filed by the appellants meritless.

On the above grounds alone we set aside the order of the High Court
D and send it to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they were on
bail during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. It is open to
them to bring this fact to the notice of the High Court and seek such interim
order as is available in law. Since the appeal is of the year 2000 the High
E Court is requested to dispose of the same expeditiously.

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.

R.P. Appeals allowed.

-