STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. BRAHMA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the finding of guilt recorded by the Sessions Court against Respondent Brahma Das is the central issue in this appeal against acquittal preferred by the State which has had a chequered history as traced hereafter.

(2.) Respondent Brahma Das and four others were found guilty of an offence under S. 302 I.P.C. read with S. 149 I.P.C. for having committed the murder of one Ranjit Ram Pande at about 5.00 p.m. on 13th June, 1974 at village Seona and were sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad. Judgment rendered on 17-6-1975 in ST No. A499 of 1974. They were also convicted for other offences under Ss. 147, 148 and 325, I.P.C., and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The accused appealed. The High Court of Allahabad which heard the appeals along with the confirmation proceedings came to the conclusion that the case against the accused had not been established beyond reasonable doubt and reversed the order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Sessions Court. The State of U. P. thereupon approached this Court by way of three appeals by special leave (Criminal Appeals Nos. 45, 46 and 47 of 1977).

(3.) This Court allowed these appeals upon being satisfied that the view taken by the High Court was unreasonable and that the High Court was clearly in error in interfering with the judgment of the Sessions Court (1985) 3 SCC 703 delivered on 2-8-1985 (per Fazal Ali and Varadarajan, JJ.). In so far as conviction was concerned, this Court restored the conviction for an offence under S. 302/149, IPC. So far as the sentence was concerned, this Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life in place of the sentence of death imposed by the Sessions Court. One of the respondents, Brahma Das, applied for a review of this order on the ground that the counsel who had appeared in the Supreme Court and argued the matter had not been authorised to appear for him and therefore had no authority to argue the matter on his behalf. Having regard to the fact that the appeal against Brahma Das was argued by a counsel not authorised by him, this Court by its order dated February 10, 1986, (Per Balakrishna Eradi and Oza, JJ. in CMP No. 6185 of 1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1977), recalled the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1985 in so far as respondent Brahma Das was concerned and restored the appeal to file. The appeal preferred by the State as against Brahma Das (Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1977) has now come up for hearing afresh in these circumstances.