The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair and just procedure in criminal appeals and the need for a thorough examination of the appeal with the assistance of both parties.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. In Sessions Case 9 of 2005, four accused were put up for trial, inter alia, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860,¹[“IPC”] and Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959. The criminal case arose out of FIR No 59 dated 15 February 2005 lodged at PS Civil Lines, Sonepat, which was committed upon the filing of the charge-sheet, for trial to the Sessions Court by an order dated 6 June 2005 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. The petitioner - Sandeep alias Kala was tried as the second accused. By a judgment dated 1 September 2006, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat held that the prosecution had established the guilt of two of the accused, Arun (A-1) and Sunil (A-3), beyond reasonable doubt and held them guilty of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the petitioner (A-2) and Ravi Kant (A-4). The Additional Sessions Judge made the following observations while acquitting the petitioner and Ravi Kant :

“43. Thus, the plea of alibi set up by accused Ravi Kant is corroborated by the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of police concerned and his subsequent exoneration.

44. As regards accused Sandeep, the oral testimony of witnesses produced by the accused in his defence stands corroborated by the documentary medical evidence. It can be reasonably held that accused Sandeep remained admitted in the Government Hospital, Mehrauli (Delhi) w.e.f. 12.2.2005 to 16.2.2005.

Thus, in this manner, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of these two accused persons namely Ravi Kant and Sandeep by not proving their presence on the date and time at the place of occurrence.”

2. Besides the appeals which were filed by the co-accused, the acquittal of the petitioner was challenged by the State of Haryana in CRM No 53-MA of 2007 (O&M). The acquittal of the co-accused Ravi Kant was also challenged by the State of Haryana in CRM No 604-MA of 2007 (O&M). The appeals against the conviction of two accused as well as the appeals against the acquittal of the petitioner and Ravi Kant were heard and disposed of by a common judgment dated 2 September 2013 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court upheld the conviction of Arun (A-1) and Sunil (A-3), while dismissing their appeals. The appeals filed by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of the petitioner and Ravi Kant were allowed and both these accused were held guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. The High Court made the following observations while examining the plea of alibi by the petitioner and Ravi Kant :

“Before going through the plea of alibi set up by Ravi Kant and Sandeep, the evidence led by them has to be examined. The defence had examined Raj Singh whose son is said to have got married on 14.02.2005. It is their case that Ravi Kant had attended that function. But the testimony is neither convincing nor can be relied upon. The accused were unable to show that any such function was held on that da. It is their admitted case that no invitation cards were printed nor any video was prepared. Even the tent was not set up. The witnesses have come forward only because Ravi Kant's father was Sarpanch of the village. It is clear that during the course of inquiry conducted earlier, the name of the Ravi Kant had been dropped because of the influence of his father. He was given a clean chit. But subsequently, the DSP held an inquiry and submitted a challan against him. The witnesses of the defence are not reliable and their evidence is not acceptable and hence rejected.

In the case of Sandeep, the Medical Officer posted at Mehrauli has created documents to show that Sandeep was admitted in the primary health centre from 12.02.2005 to 16.02.2005. All t