Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 331

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Indrajeet Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Singh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2022
WITH
Indrajeet Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Avdhesh Singh @ Chhunnu Singh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2022
Decided On : 19-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sangeeta Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Rajkumar Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kr Pandey, Adv Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, AOR Ms. Srishti Singh, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Reasoned Judgment – Such a practice of pronouncing final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged.

Headnote:
(A) Practice and Procedure – Reasoned Judgment – Despite strong observations made by Apex Court as far as back in year 1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still practice of pronouncing only operative portion of judgment without a reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently has been continued – Such a practice of pronouncing final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged. (Para 4.2)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Reasoned judgment was pronounced and uploaded after a period of almost five months – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside without further entering into merits of case nor expressing anything on merits in favour of either party – Appeals remanded to High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits – If conviction is sustained accused shall surrender within a period of two weeks from date of pronouncement of judgment. (Para 4.4)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 30.03.2019 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1083 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.1178 of 2012 by which High Court has allowed the said appeals preferred by original accused and has acquitted them for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, original complainant/informant has preferred the present appeals.
Findings of Court:
During the pendency of the appeals before the High Court accused need not surrender and they may be treated to have been released on bail and continued to be released on bail, however subject to the ultimate outcome of the appeals before High Court.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1083 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 1178 of 2012 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeals preferred by the original accused and has acquitted them for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) the original complainant/informant has preferred the present appeals.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original complainant/informant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State have drawn our attention to the fact that in the present case the arguments in the appeals were concluded on 30.03.2019 and the High Court allowed the said appeals on the very day and pronounced the operative portion of the order and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and directed the accused who was in jail to be released, but a reasoned judgment and order was pronounced after a period of approximately five months.

3.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original complainant/informant has heavily relied upon the recent decision of this Court dated 29.10.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020 in the case of Balaji Baliram Mupade and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, by which such a practice of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment has been deprecated. It is submitted that in the aforesaid case this Hon’ble Court considered another decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, (1984) 1 SCC 596 as well as other decisions referred in Para-4 of the said decision. It is submitted that this Court also considered in detail another decision in the case of Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 by which guidelines have been issued by this Court regarding the pronouncement of judgments and orders.

4. Applying the law laid down in the case of Balaji Baliram Mupade (supra) and the earlier decisions of this Court in the case of Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

4.1 In the case of Balaji Baliram Mupade (supra) in paragraphs 1 to 4 it is observed and held as under:

“1. Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments-an aspect repeatedly emphasized by this Court. The problem is compounded where the result is known but not the reasons. This deprives any aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal in the next tier of judicial scrutiny.

2. A Constitution Bench of this Court as far back as in the year 1983 in the State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, 1984 (1) SCC 596 drew the attention of the High Courts to the serious difficulties which were caused on account of a practice which was increasingly being adopted by several High Courts, that of pronouncing the final orders 2 without a reasoned judgment. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:

“30. We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against the other, or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instant case, that a detenu be released from detention. If the object of passing such orders i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document