Sheela vs Brahamjit - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1767

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1767

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, Archana Puri, JJ.
Sheela – Appellant
Versus
Brahamjit & Ors. – Respondents
CRA-D. No. 101-DB of 2014
Decided On : 04-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. A.P.S. Deol Senior, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Mr. Ankur Mittal AAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago DAG, Haryana, Mr. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Mr. Vinod Ghai Senior, Advocate, Mr. Arnav Ghai, Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Mr. Gaurav Singla

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 201, 120B, 364, 148 read with Section 149 - Acquittal of accused-respondents in murder case - Subsequent appeals by complainant and State challenged this acquittal leading to the conviction of accused - Court ruled that judgment of conviction is valid despite the absence of the original judge for sentencing, upholding procedural tenets proofing fairness and due process in criminal justice. (Paras 1, 3, 10, 24)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 235, 353, 326 - Importance of sentencing as an integral part of judgment and the discretion of judges in handling cases transitioning between different judges in trials - Upholding precedents concerning the completion of judgments across different judicial compositions. (Paras 10, 12, 24)

Facts of the case:
The case involved multiple appeals related to an acquittal in a series of criminal charges arising from an FIR dating back to 1999, which eventually led to the conviction of the accused by a Division Bench after a thorough examination of the evidence.

Findings of Court:
Conviction for serious offences was maintained despite procedural challenges regarding the absence of one judge from the original bench upon sentencing.

Issues: The primary issues addressed included whether a judgment lacks integrity without a sentence and if a different composition of judges could complete the previous judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prior judgment of conviction stands valid and enforceable, affirming that procedural provisions allow for sentencing by a successor judge under specific conditions.

Result: Appeals affirmed, conviction upheld, case adjourned for sentencing.

Table of Content
1. acquittal and connected matters presented. (Para 1 , 2)
2. conviction upheld leading to sentence hearing. (Para 3 , 4)
3. rescheduling due to bench changes and covid-19. (Para 6 , 7)
4. arguments on necessity for fresh hearings. (Para 8 , 9)
5. contrasting viewpoints on the completeness of judgment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. judgment completeness and statutory requirements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
7. decisions upheld; prior judgment deemed valid. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
8. adjournment for sentencing hearing. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

Judgment

1. Accused-respondents were acquitted in FIR No.955 dated 27.12.1999 under Sections 302 /201/323/312/170/120B/364/212/148 read with Section 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Central, Faridabad vide judgment dated 16.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

2. Six connected matters, i.e. two appeals arising out of said judgment dated 16.11.2013 and four other matters pertaining to FIR No.955 were pending before Division Bench of this Court. CRA-D No.101-DB-2014 was filed by the complainant whereas, CRA No.AD-30 of 2016 has been filed by the State of Haryana challenging acquittal of the accused/respondents. CRR No.2948 of 2013 was filed by accused/respondents – Harender and Dinesh, challenging order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the trial Court vide which their application for treating them juveniles was rejected. CRR No. 2444 of 2011 was filed by accused Sanjay @ Teeta against order dated 19.09.2011 vide which his application to decide his case alongwith co-accused, namely, Brahamjit and others was dismissed by the learned trial Court. CRM-67225-M-2005 and CRM-3273-M-2006 were filed by accused Satish, Sanjay, Mahavir and Devki Nandan against summoning order dated 12.11.2005 passed by the learned trial Court. All these matters were decided by the Division Bench on 29.01.2020.

3. The Division Bench of which one of us (Archana Puri, J.) was a Member, found that prosecution had successfully established its case against accused-respondents. Accordingly, CRA-AD No.30 of 2016 and CRA-D No.101-DB of 2014 filed by the complainant and State, respectively, were allowed, impugned judgment dated 16.11.2013 was set aside. Accused-respondents were held guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 /201/120B/364/148 read with Section 149 IPC. Criminal Revision No.2948 of 2013 was dismissed. Criminal Revision No.2444 of 2011 and CRM No.67225-M of 2005 alongwith CRM No.3273-M of 2006 were dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. In CRA-AD No.30 of 2016 and CRA-D No.101-DB of 2014, it was directed that accused be produced to be heard on the quantum of sentence on 17.02.2020. The State was directed to produce the respondents in Court on 17.02.2020. All the private respondents, except respondents No.13 and 14, were present on 17.02.2020 and following order was passed on 17.02.2020:-

“All the private respondents except respondent Nos. 7, 13 & 14 are present in person.

Respondent No.7 has not been served. Respondent Nos. 13 & 14 are stated to be lodged in Neemka Jail, Faridabad. They be summoned through production warrants. Fresh notice to respondent No.7 be issued through concerned CJM for the date fixed. Post again on 02.03.2020

All the remaining respondents are directed to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of other connected case(s).”

4. The matter was listed again on 02.03.2020, but as requisite report of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, pursuant to order 17.02.2020 had not been received and respondent No.7 in Crl. Appeal-D No.101-DB of 2014 was not present, the matter was adjourned for 17.03.2020 with the following order being passed:-

“Pursuant to the order dated 17.02.2020, requisite report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, has not been received. Respondents, who are present in the Court, undertake to remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing. Respondent Nos.13