SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exordially speaking, the point for decision is short but its legal import and human portent are deep, sounding in constitutional values and meriting incisive examination. Where the question wears a simple look but its answer strikes at life and liberty we must proceed on the inarticulate major premise of human law as the solemn delivery system of human justice. In formal terms, the problem to be resolved is the vires of O. 21, R. 15 (1) (c) of the Supreme Court Rules (the Rules, for short), but in juristic terms it turns on the inflexible stages as against its facultative facets of an appellate hearing when it is a first appeal against a death sentence or life imprisonment. More particularly, is an appeal to the Supreme Court falling within the scope of Art. 134 (1) or the enlarged jurisdiction permitted by Art. 134 (2) liable to shorthand hearing and peril of summary dismissal Brevi manu, the appellant urges that Art. 134 of the Constitution compels this Court to hear and dispose of criminal appeals of the grave categories covered by it, not exparte as O. 21, R. 15 (1) (c) of the Rules permits but in extensor, and only after notice to the State and with the record of the case before it. Therefore, the Rule is bad.

(2.) Any legal issue of profound impact, if regarded by Judges literally and not creatively, may be given short shrift, especially if counsel is more assertive then explorative, produces more heat than light and the text to be interpreted lends itself to one sense on the surface and another in the deeper layers. But when the consequences of the construction can be calamitous and the subject-matter involves the right to life and long loss of liberty, a final Court, like ours, must reflect on the meaning of meanings, the human values which illumine our legal system and the ends of justice the means of law must serve. The heart and the head interact and interpret.

(3.) A thumb-nail sketch of the sequence of facts may be necessary to get a hang of the constitutional core of the case. Several persons, including the appellants, were accused of murder and other violent offences but were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The State carried an appeal to the High Court against the acquittal of all the 18 accused persons. In an elaborate judgment the High Court found the case of the prosecution proved although it confirmed the acquittal of quite a few. The convicted accused, 12 in number, were awarded life imprisonment under S. 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. and lesser terms of imprisonment for other offences. Thereupon the convicted appellants preferred an appeal to this Court under S. 2 (a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 (for short the Enlargement Act). This appeal was listed for preliminary hearing ex parte under R. 15 (1) (c) of the Rules (as amended in 1978). When the case was opened at the preliminary hearing counsel for the appellants contended that, as an inalienable incident of a statutory appeal, his clients were entitled to a fullfledged hearing after notice to the State and not an abbreviated disposal in shape of a preliminary hearing, however long that hearing might be. Thereupon the Court passed the following order :