Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court confirming the conviction of eight appellants under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 147 and 148 of the same Act. The case arose from an incident on January 24, 1960, in village Nandgaon, District Mathura, where the appellants, armed with ballams, a pharsa, and lathis, assaulted one Tikam, who died about five hours later. After the assault, the appellants decided to ransack Tikam's house; on the way, they were joined by four others, and they then assaulted one Puran. The Magistrate initially framed a common charge for both incidents, but the Sessions Judge divided it into two separate charges and trials. In the first trial, the appellants were convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 147/148 IPC; the High Court dismissed their appeal on February 15, 1961. In the second trial, relating to the assault on Puran, eleven accused were convicted under Sections 147/148 IPC, but the High Court acquitted them on January 31, 1961, fifteen days before the confirmation in the first case. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants raised two main contentions: first, that the prior acquittal in the second case operated as a bar under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; second, that they were denied a fair hearing because the High Court judge did not allow a reply to State arguments. The Court rejected both contentions. On the first, it held that the assault on Tikam was complete before the unlawful assembly formed a new common object to assault Puran, and thus the two offences were distinct; the plea of autrefois acquit was inapplicable because the charge in the second case was different and independent, and Sections 236 and 237 CrPC did not apply. The Court distinguished Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor Federation of Malaya and Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, among other cases. On the second contention, the Court noted that the appellants had not raised the fair hearing objection before the High Court judge and had not pressed it when seeking a certificate. The Court also declined to review the evidence for a third time, there being no special circumstances. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentences were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Plea of Autrefois Acquit - Section 403, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Prior acquittal in distinct case does not bar conviction - The appellants contended that prior acquittal in the second case barred conviction in the present case, but the two incidents involved separate assaults with different common objects; the second offence was not based on the same facts; Sections 236 and 237 were not applicable. Held that acquittal in one trial for unlawful assembly in a different incident did not operate as res judicata or autrefois acquit bar (Paras 1-6). B) Criminal Procedure - Fair Hearing - No denial when no objection raised - The appellants alleged denial of opportunity to reply to State arguments, but the High Court judge delivered judgment immediately after arguments; no objection was raised before him despite opportunity; the point was not pressed when asking for certificate. Held that the contention could not be considered (Paras 1-6). C) Criminal Appeal - Scope of Review - Supreme Court not to reappraise evidence third time absent special circumstances - The Court declined to review evidence for a third time as accepted by the trial court and High Court; no special circumstances shown. Held that convictions and sentences confirmed (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether prior acquittal in a separate trial for a distinct offence operates as a bar under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; whether denial of fair hearing occurred; whether Supreme Court should review evidence third time
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentences of appellants under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 147/148 IPC confirmed; prior acquittal in separate case held not to bar conviction.
Law Points
- Section 403 Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1898 plea of autrefois acquit applies only to same offence or same facts
- distinct offences with different common objects not barred
- Sections 236 and 237 CrPC not applicable to distinct offences
- Supreme Court does not review evidence third time absent special circumstances
- prior acquittal not binding as res judicata in separate trials for distinct offences
