Supreme Court remits Case to the lower court for a fresh appraisal

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

Supreme Court in its recent judgment had remitted a case of capital punishment back to Allahabad High Court for reconsideration of the evidence set forth, arguments given by both sides as well as have thorough discussions regarding the decision of capital punishment given by the Trial Court in this case.

Facts of the case

The accused-appellant Pappu @ Chandra Kumar had committed the murder of a senior police officer as was alleged during his trial at the court. The trial court found him guilty of all charges under Section 302 and Section 506 of theIndian Penal Code and under Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. Based on the seriousness of the offence he was sentenced to death by the Farrukhabad District court, Uttar Pradesh.

The accused then appealed before the Allahabad High Court. The trial court also sent the reference of their Judgement to the High Court for confirmation of the capital punishment given to the accused-appellant. The High Court took note of the arguments of both sides as set forth at the trial court. The Court also recorded the trial court’s findings and then gave its ruling by confirming the death penalty of the accused. But the High Court failed to take notice of the “arguments of the appellant or the respondent” and those “were [never] discussed and considered.” The Apex Court found this very “strange” as the High Court had meticulously recorded all the arguments and counter-arguments, the trial court’s decision and also discussed in details the situations and extenuating circumstances that merit capital punishment.

Court ruling

A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided over this case. Justices A. K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer and M. R. Shah gave their ruling on February 20, 2019. The Apex Court in their ruling discussed the failings of the High Court in following procedures regarding the verdict. The Bench unequivocally opposed the High Court’s approach towards the proceedings in this case and rebuked the lower court for not recording its own reasoning with respect to this case.

The judges exclaimed their disappointment that the High Court had “not dealt with the issue as to whether the conviction recorded by the trial court was justified or not.” The top court also clarified their position on how the High Court’s ruling failed to take into account the seriousness of the matter as they should have dealt in depth about the merits of the issues at hand considering that the “appellant is convicted for serious offence of murder, i.e., under Section 302 IPC and above all given the death sentence therefor.”

The Supreme Court offered their perspective and suggested, “High Court was sitting as a Court of first appeal. Therefore, it was required to revisit the entire evidence and was also required to record its opinion as to the findings of the trial court on the conviction were warranted and justified or not.” The Apex Court declared that since the High Court was “silent on the question of conviction” the top court has no choice but to “set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits on the lines indicated above.”

Impact of the judgment

This ruling of the top court has brought to light many issues that have been plaguing our justice system. The number of pending cases, serious shortages of lawyers and judges, delay in the appointments of court officials, political unwillingness to combat this apathy and the pressure to deal with such aggravating situations have seriously afflicted our justice system. Although that cannot be construed as an excuse in this current scenario especially; and though timely intervention by the Supreme Court may have saved the day, this situation has but left a dismal taste. It is imperative that some serious thoughts should be given regarding this matter. Our lawmakers and politicians should discuss this issues and come up with reasonable and clear solutions that can cure these problems. The plights of thousands of poor people who went through the altar of the court and held faith in our justice system and our Constitution are at stake. A misstep in such matters may seriously undermine their faith in our justice system and question their beliefs in our courts. Our courts are not only the pride of our country but also are the guardians of our democracy. They are the temples that honour our Constitution and have always guided us through the times of darkness. It is our duty to protect and preserve the integrity and honour of our legal system and its haloed bastion of judiciary from the hubristic attitudes of some cavalier gentries.

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

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -