Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Deep Narayan Chourasia against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 14.11.2017 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.77 of 1994. The appellant was one of five accused tried for the murder of Kaushalya Devi on 06.02.1992 under Section 302/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, by judgment dated 08.02.1994, convicted Kanhai Prasad Chourasia under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment and seven years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The other four accused, including the appellant, were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC but convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. All five accused appealed to the High Court. The High Court, however, under a misconception that all five were convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, dismissed both appeals and convicted the four accused (including the appellant) under Section 302/149 IPC without any appeal by the State against their acquittal and without awarding any sentence under that section. The appellant alone appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court identified four fundamental jurisdictional errors: (1) the High Court proceeded on a wrong factual premise that all accused were convicted under Section 302/149 IPC; (2) the appellant and others were acquitted of that charge but the High Court convicted them without any State appeal; (3) the High Court convicted them under Section 149 IPC despite the trial court's acquittal on that count; and (4) the High Court did not award any sentence for the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to apply its judicial mind and committed jurisdictional errors. Relying on Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520, the Court noted its suo motu powers under Article 136 to extend relief to non-appealing accused. However, since the other four accused did not appeal, the Court set aside the impugned judgment only qua the appellant and remanded the case to the High Court for rehearing of Criminal Appeal (DB) No.77 of 1994 on merits in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against acquittal - Jurisdictional error - High Court convicted appellant under Section 302/149 IPC despite trial court's acquittal on that charge and absence of State appeal - Held that High Court committed fundamental jurisdictional error by proceeding on wrong factual premise and convicting without jurisdiction (Paras 17-20). B) Criminal Procedure - Sentence - Conviction without sentence - High Court convicted appellant under Section 302/149 IPC but did not award any sentence - Held that such conviction without sentence is illegal and violates Section 354(3) CrPC (Paras 21-23). C) Constitutional Law - Supreme Court's powers under Article 136 - Suo motu exercise - Supreme Court can extend benefit to non-appealing accused in exceptional cases to meet ends of justice - Relied on Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520 (Paras 25-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302/149 IPC when the trial court had acquitted him of that charge and no appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 14.11.2017 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.77 of 1994 is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for rehearing of the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The appellant is directed to be released from custody forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Jurisdictional error
- Conviction without appeal against acquittal
- Suo motu powers under Article 136
- Remand for rehearing
