Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2008

Rattiram & Ors.

.....……..Appellant

Versus

State of M. P. Through

Inspector of Police

………Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2008

Satyanarayan & ors.

……......Appellant

Versus

The State of Madhya Pradesh Through

Incharge, Police Station Cantt.

………Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

Perceiving divergent and contradictory views as regards the

effect and impact of not committing an accused in terms of

Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the

Code’) in cases where charge-sheet is filed under Section 3(1)(x)

of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

2

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and cognizance is

directly taken by the Special Judge under the Act, a two-Judge

Bench thought it apposite to refer the matter to a larger Bench

and on the basis of the said reference, the matter has been

placed before us. At this juncture, it is requisite to clarify that the

real conflict or discord is manifest in Moly and Another v. State

of Kerala¹ and Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala² on one hand

wherein it has been held that the conviction by the Special Court

is not sustainable if it has suo motu entertained and taken

cognizance of the complaint directly without the case being

committed to it and, therefore, there should be retrial or total

setting aside of the conviction, as the case may be, and the other

in State of M. P. v. Bhooraji & Ors.³ wherein, taking aid of

Section 465 (1) of the Code, it has been opined that when a trial

has been conducted by the court of competent jurisdiction and a

conviction has been recorded on proper appreciation of evidence,

the same cannot be erased or effaced merely on the ground that

there had been no committal proceeding and cognizance was

taken by the Special Court inasmuch as the same does not give

rise to failure of justice.

1 AIR 2004 SC 1890

2 (2004) 1 SCC 215

3 AIR 2001 SC 3372

3

2.

The necessitous facts required to be adumbrated for the

purpose of answering the present reference are that the

appellants were charge sheeted under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act

but eventually, charges were framed under Sections 147, 148

and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short, ‘the IPC’). The learned Trial Judge vide judgment dated

31.08.1996 in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1995 convicted all the

accused persons barring Mohan for the offences under Section

302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to

imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of

payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three

months and sentenced to one month rigorous imprisonment

under Section 147 of the IPC. The accused Mohan was convicted

for the offence under Sections 148 and 302 of the IPC and was

sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment on the

first score and to further life imprisonment and pay a fine of

Rupees 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further

R.I. for three months on the second count.

3.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and the

order of sentence, the appellants along with others preferred

4

Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 1996 before the High Court of

Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Apart from raising

various contentions on merits, it was pressed that the entire trial

was vitiated as it had commenced and concluded without

committal of the case to the Court of Session as provided under

Section 193 of the Code. Heavy reliance was placed on Gangula

Ashok and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh⁴ and Moly

and Another (supra) and Vidyadharan (supra) but the

Division Bench placed reliance on Bhooraji (supra) wherein

Gangula Ashok (supra) was distinguishe