http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  694 of 2006

PETITIONER: Kalu Ram & Anr.                                          

RESPONDENT: State of Delhi                                                   

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/06/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5731-5733 of 2005)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.   

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 2001  filed by the informant has been dismissed and the said  revision and 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 ’IPC’), along with accused no.1 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 accused  Nos.1, 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 IPC and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment  for seven years with a fine of Rs.1000/- 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 I IPC.  According to him they should have been convicted  under Section 302 IPC and the other accused persons should  not have been acquitted. Appellants filed an appeal  questioning their conviction and sentence 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 No.117 of 2001, the appeal also was without merit.

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

represented by Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and Ms. Mridul Aggarwal  who in fact were the learned counsel for the informant Ranjit  Singh in the 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 the appellants was not  independently examined.  Merely 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 and sent 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 Court is  requested to dispose of the same expeditiously.

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.