1. Conviction under Section 304, Part I, Indian Penal Code — Appeal admitted only on the point of sentence — Challenge to the validity of partial admission of appeal. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
26th February, 1960.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Rabari Ghela Jadav, Appellant
Versus
State of Bombay, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Advocates (at State expense), for Appellant M/s. H. J. Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Respondent.
Advocates:
H.J.Umrigar, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.H.Dhebar
H.J.Umrigar, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.H.Dhebar
An Appellate Court cannot partially dismiss an appeal by admitting it only on the point of sentence. If an appeal is not summarily dismissed under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must be heard on the merits of both conviction and sentence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 421 and 422 - Power of Appellate Court to dismiss appeal summarily - Partial summary dismissal - Whether an appeal can be admitted only on the point of sentence - The provisions of the Code do not contemplate a partial summary dismissal; if an appeal is not dismissed summarily under Section 421, it must be heard on the merits of both conviction and sentence. (Para 6)
(B) Indian Penal Code - Section 304, Part I - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Evidence of eyewitness, dying declaration, and recovery of weapon - Motive - Even if the motive for the assault is obscure, the conviction can be sustained if the evidence of the assault is clear and reliable. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of another person by attacking him with a stick. The High Court admitted the appeal only on the point of sentence and reduced the life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged this procedure, arguing that the appeal should have been heard on the merits of the conviction as well.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court's order admitting the appeal only on the point of sentence was invalid as the Code of Criminal Procedure does not allow for partial summary dismissal. However, upon hearing the appeal on the merits, the court found the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, a dying declaration, and the recovery of a blood-stained weapon, sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt.
Issues: Whether an Appellate Court has the power to direct that an appeal be heard only on the question of sentence, effectively dismissing the challenge to the conviction summarily.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Sections 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an Appellate Court may either dismiss an appeal summarily if there are no sufficient grounds for interference or, if it does not dismiss it summarily, it must proceed to hear the appeal. The law does not permit a "partial summary dismissal" where the court admits the appeal only regarding the sentence while ignoring the conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an appellate court can legally admit an appeal solely on the point of sentence while refusing to hear the appeal on the merits of conviction. (Para 2 , 5 )
3. Analysis of Sections 421 and 422, Code of Criminal Procedure — Rejection of partial summary dismissal — Evaluation of eyewitness testimony, dying declaration, and recovery of weapon. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
4. An appellate court cannot partially dismiss an appeal by admitting it only on the point of sentence; it must either dismiss the appeal summarily or hear it fully. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction under Section 304, Indian Penal Code upheld — Sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment maintained. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Can an appellate court admit a criminal appeal only on the point of sentence?
No. Under Sections 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appellate court must either dismiss an appeal summarily if there are no sufficient grounds for interference or admit it for a full hearing. Partial summary dismissal, such as admitting an appeal only on the point of sentence, is not permissible. (Para 6 )
7. Is a clear motive necessary for conviction if other evidence of the assault is established?
No. If the evidence clearly establishes that the accused assaulted the deceased, the absence of a clear or proven motive for the assault is of little consequence and does not invalidate the conviction. (Para 9 )
8. How is the reliability of a dying declaration assessed when corroborated by other evidence?
A dying declaration is considered genuine and reliable when there is no evidence of previous enmity and it is corroborated by eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the weapon used in the crime. (Para 8 , 9 )
Judgment
IMAM, J. : This appeal is by special leave. The appellant was convicted under S. 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He appealed to the Bombay High Court. According to the judgment of the High Court the appeal was admitted only on the point of sentence. The High Court reduced the sentence from imprisonment for life to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
2. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court could not, in law, admit an appeal only on the point of sentence and the appellant was entitled to have his appeal heard on the merits of his conviction as well. The evidence upon which the appellant was convicted was unsatisfactory and he was entitled to be acquitted.
3. Shortly stated, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant had caused the death of Zina Hira on April 6, 1957, when the deceased was returning from an adjoining village to the village of his residence. The appellant met him on the way and accused him of having committed theft in the appellant s house which the deceased denied. Upon this the appellant attacked him with a stick which had iron rings round it. A number of blows were given by the appellant with this stick in consequence of which Zina Hira fell down. Although a doctor was called for from Keshod. 8 miles away, ultimately the deceased was taken to Junagadh for better medical treatment but died on the way in the early hours of the morning of April 7.
4. According to the case of the appellant he was not present at the scene of the crime and pleaded not guilty to the charge.
5. According to the judgment of the High Court the appeal of the appellant before it was admitted only on the point of sentence. It was urged that this procedure adopted by the High Court was not in conformity with the provisions of Ss. 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and Patna High Court in the cases of Nafar Sheikh v. Emperor , ILR 41 Cal 406, Gaya Singh v. Emperor , ILR 4 Pat 254, Sudhir Kumar v. Emperor , AIR 1942 Pat 46 and Sheikh Rijhu v. Emperor , AIR 1931 Pat 351(1), and of the Privy Council in the case of Emperor v. Dahu Raut, 62 Ind App 129. Reference was also made to the decision of the Patan High Court in the case of Kuldip Das v. Emperor , ILR 11 Pat 697: and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bai Dhankor v. Emperor , ILR 1937 Bom 365.
6. In order to appreciate the submission made on behalf of the appellant reference to certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Chapter XXXI concerning Appeals will be necessary. Under S. 418 (1) an appeal may lie on a matter of fact as well as a matter of law, except where the trial was by jury, in which case the appeal shall lie on a matter of law only. It is unnecessary to refer to sub-S. (2) of this section for the purposes of this appeal. Under S. 419 every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader and every such petition shall (unless the Court to which it is presented otherwise directs) be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed against, and, in cases tried by a jury, a copy of the heads of the charge recorded under S. 367. As to what should follow on the presentation of such a petition it will be necessary to quote the provisions of Ss. 421 and 422 of the Code. Section 421 reads:
"421. (1) On receiving the petition and copy under S. 419 or S. 420, the Appellate Court shall peruse the same, and, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily:
Provided that no appeal presented under S. 419 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same.
(2) Before dismissing an appeal under this section, the Court may call for the record of the case, but shall not be bound to do so."
Section 422 reads:
"422. If the Appellat
