Ram Ratan vs State Of Rajasthan

Ram Ratan ....Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan ....Respondent

JUDGMENT

AFTAB ALAM, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated August

27, 2009 passed by a learned single judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the

appellant's appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1139 of 2006) from the judgment

and order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court.

4. The Special Court, Kota, specified under the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by its judgment and

order dated October 16, 2006 in Sessions Case no.89 of 2006, convicted the

appellant under sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Penal Code and sentenced

2

him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.500 (in default 1

month's simple imprisonment) under section 307, imprisonment for 5 years

and a fine of Rs.500 (in default 1 month's simple imprisonment) under

section 326 and imprisonment for one year under section 324 of the Penal

Code. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

5. The High Court disposed of the appeal by a brief order that runs into

no more than four pages and a few lines in the paper book. On the first half

page the High Court stated the sections under which the appellant was

convicted and the sentences awarded to him for the respective offences.

Next, it very briefly stated about the prosecution case and the charge sheet

submitted by the police. It then, restated the sections under which the

appellant was convicted and the respective sentences given to him under

those sections by the trial court. In the next paragraph, it vaguely stated the

submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and in the two lines

thereafter, the submissions made by the public prosecutor. Then comes the

consideration of the matter by the court, which is as under all of six lines:

"I, after hearing the arguments of Learned Advocates of both

the sides and perusing the facts and circumstances of this case,

while confirming the order of conviction of the appellant and

while keeping in the view the facts that this is his first offence

and that he is not habitual offender, I think it justified to order 6

years' rigorous imprisonment in place of 7 years' rigorous

imprisonment while maintaining rest of the judgment as it

was."

3

6. After the above, the judgment concludes with the direction to the jail

officials that the appellant should be given the benefit of section 432 of the

Code keeping in view his conduct in the jail.

7. We feel sorry in reminding the High Court that an appeal under

section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code is both on facts and law, and the

High Court hearing the appeal is the last court of facts. To put it mildly, the

High Court was rather cavalier in disposing of the appellant's appeal in the

manner as seen above.

8. We may note here that even though no appeal against the High Court

judgment is preferred by the State, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, counsel appearing for

the State of Rajasthan was equally critical of the way the High Court did not

take into account the material evidences against the appellant.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we are constrained to interfere in the matter.

The order of the High Court is set aside and the appellant's appeal before the

High Court (single judge Criminal Appeal no.1139 of 2006) is restored to its

file for a fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law.

10. It is hoped and expected that the High Court will finally hear and

dispose of the appeal without any undue delay and preferably by the end of

this year. In case for any reason, the appeal is not disposed of by the end of

4

the year, it will be open to the appellant to make a prayer for bail before the

High Court.

11. In the result the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.

...................................J

(AFTAB ALAM)

....................................J

(R.M. LODHA)

New Delhi,

October 8, 2010