Supreme Court: It is open to the Accused to challenge the finding and order of his Conviction in the Appeal filed by the State

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari on May 6 upheld the legal position that the accused can challenge his conviction in an appeal filed by the State even if he did not prefer a formal appeal in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mehram and Ors.

Facts of the Case

The complainant had four fields out of which one was situated at a distance of about one kilometre. To reach the field, the complainant had to pass through the fields of the accused. This path was unrecorded in the government record. Hence, there were quarrels among the parties regarding the path. One night, when the complainant was returning from his field, the accused came out of the bushes and surrounded him. One of the accused attacked the complainant but he defended the blow by his hand and got injured on the palm after which Mehram, the accused against this appeal is preferred came from behind and gave a blow at the complainants head and everybody ran away assuming he died of the blow.

Observation of the courts

The trial court after an extensive analysis of the evidence on record found Mehram along with other accused persons guilty in the case. The court convicted Mehram of committing an offence under Section 148, 302, 324/149 Indian Penal Code. Accused Mehram is hereby sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.100/in default of payment of fine to undergo an additional three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

The accused preferred an appeal before the High court where the conviction of Mehram was converted from under Section 302 to one under section 326 of IPC on the finding that the said accused had exceeded his right of private defence. Despite the charge of murder and intentionally causing, the High Court awarded sentence of the period already undergone (around five months) by the accused Mehram and directed him to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 to the next of kin of the deceased.

Hence this appeal is filed by the state against all the five accused persons originally but it was made clear by the counsel for the state that the appeal is being pursued only against the respondent Mehram in respect of the nature of the offence which was converted to section 326 from Section 302 and the sentence which was awarded.

The counsel for Mehram however, urged that the said accused had a right to challenge the finding of guilt and conviction under Section 326 and 148, IPC, recorded against him, even though the said accused had not preferred a formal appeal against the impugned judgment. To make good this submission, reliance is placed on Chandrakant Patil vs. State through CBI (1998) 3 SCC 38, Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh & Others 4 (2014) 7 SCC 323, State of Rajasthan vs. Ramanand (2017) 5 SCC 695, and Section 377(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The accused Mehram is justified in contending that it is open to the said accused to challenge the finding and order of conviction under Section 326/148, IPC recorded against him in the appeal filed by the State, assailing the impugned judgment of the High Court.

The Supreme Court condemned the judgement of the High court and said it is based on erroneous assumptions and the sentence of only about five months in the facts of the present case, by no stretch of the imagination, was adequate. The Court upheld the trial court’s reasoning and partly allowed this appeal by the state. The court modified the judgment of the trial court and the High court by convicting Mehram for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I and Section 148, IPC.

The bench also ordered that the bail bonds stands cancelled and the accused Mehram is directed to surrender within six weeks from the date on which lockdown in the country due to pandemic COVID-19 including in the State of Rajasthan is relaxed, to undergo the remaining sentence period.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -