AQEELA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Criminal Sessions trial No. 723/78, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, convicted the appellants for offences under Section 304 Part II, IPC and Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and awarded a measure of sentence to the appellants. The Government appealed against the said verdict. So did the convicted accused. Thus, Criminal Appeal No. 199/80 at the instance of the Government and Criminal Appeal Nos. 2952 and 2953 of 1979 at the instance of the accused were preferred in the Allahabad High Court. It transpires that Criminal Revision No. 1917/79 was also preferred by the complainant against the same verdict of the Court of Session through a counsel who later became a Judge of the High Court. The aforesaid three criminal appeals were disposed of, about fifteen years later, on 5-8-1994 by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court authored by the same Hon'ble Judge aforementioned as a junior member of the Bench whereby the appeal of the State was allowed and the appeals of the accused-appellants were dismissed with the result that the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC was altered to be one under Section 302/34 IPC. Since Criminal Revision No. 1917/79 preferred by the complainant had not been disposed of simultaneously, it was taken up by the same Bench twelve days later on 17-8-1994 on which orders were passed that the judgment passed on 5-8-1994 in Government Appeal No. 199/80 shall govern the petition which was ordered to be disposed of accordingly. A statutory appeal has been preferred in this Court by the convicted accused and they have brought into focus the factum of the filing of the revision petition by the named Advocate turned Judge who sat to decide the appeal with a result disadvantageous to the accused-appellants and favourable to the complainant.

(2.) Without meaning to dwell on this aspect of the matter any further, the barest minimum what we say is that there has occasioned a failure of justice. That factor alone is enough for us to allow these appeals, which we hereby do, setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and remit the matters back to it for fresh decision of the aforesaid three appeals on revival in accordance with law and on granting a fresh hearing. Sequelly, the orders passed in Criminal Revision No. 1917/79 are also set aside and the matter is put back as a tagged matter with the appeals now put before the High Court.

(3.) We notice that Aqeela Begum, one of the appellants, was granted bail by this Court. We order that she shall continue to be on bail while her appeal remains pending in the High Court. Other accused have also the liberty to apply to the High Court for grant of bail which if applied for, shall be dealt with on its own merit. Since the matters are very old, let them rank top priority in disposal by the High Court.