Case Analysis: Majjal Singh v State of Haryana [(2013) 55 Ocr (SC)-1092]

Share & spread the love

 

Case Specifications

Citation

 (2013) 55 Ocr (Sc)-1092.

Bench

GS Singhvi, Ranjana P. Desai AND S.A. Bobde, JJ

Strength

3
Advocates (Appellant)
Dushyant Parashar, And Vivek Sharma

Advocates (Respondent)

Narendra Hooda, Ankit Swarup, Dr Monika Gusain.

Introduction

The case is an appeal arising out of a  Punjab and Haryana HC. The HC disposed of the matter in an unwarranted way. The current Judgement arises from an SLP in which the SC, without delving into the facts of the case, discusses the right to reasoned order as essential in a case involving a charge under S. 302 IPC where the accused is sentenced to life imprisonment.

The analysis sets out the brief of the case and analyses how the preceding judgement of a constitutional bench backs the judgement of the supreme court.

Brief Facts of Majjal Singh v State of Haryana

The case involves an appeal from Punjab and Haryana HC wherein a Muslim couple Nasiban and Khurshid namely were parted due to alleged cruelty to the wife. Thereafter the wife went to her paternal home. Even after giving a fair opportunity for restitution, the beating was repeated.

After which  Nasiban divorced Khurshid and performed a 2nd marriage. In lieu of this grudge, Majjal(Father of Khurshid ) accompanied Khurid, his sons namely, Harun, Rajak, Khurshid and Bhati, Usman son of Sumeri, Sattar son of Rozdar, and Mubin son of Sardar and other persons in an attempt to kidnap  Farida, daughter of Deen Dar. They approached Nasiban’s house to kidnap a young and unmarried girl from the family.

In pursuant of the same, Majjal (appellant) fired a shot at Lal Khan, whereas Harun fired a shot at Abdul Karim, Khurshid fired a shot at Deen Dar, apart, injuries were also caused with lathis etc. Lal Khan succumbed to the injuries on the spot only. Thereafter Majjal was charge-sheeted under sections 148, 149, 302, and 307 IPC, based on an FIR timed 3:30 am 31 1995, was filed.

The sessions court found the appellant guilty for the aforementioned section and the HC uphold the judgement by an order which essentially narrated the movement of the case at hand more than the evidence produced, documents supplied and other annexures for the appeal.

Issue

The primary issue considered in the appeal to SC was the right to a reasoned order.

Judgement of Majjal Singh v State of Haryana

The SC highlights that the HC acts as the court of 1st appeal, the role of the HC here was to consider whether the trial court’s assessment of evidence and opinion regarding the conviction was correctly done or not. The HC ought to state the reasons to accept the evidence presented on the record. Therefore the HC’s concurrence with the judgment of the Trial court could only be accepted if it is backed by reasoning.

For the case at hand, the court elaborately listed the factual matrix, followed by the sections so prosecuted ie. 148,149,302,364,323,120-B IPC and 25 Of Arms Act, highlighted the ratio regarding the period of punishment. But the essence of the judgment i.e. why the evidence from the defendants(appellant) shifted the burden of proof was absent.

In the case, The Supreme court criticized the judgment as to the cryptic nature of the High court as it pointed out the names and numbers of the PW, particulars of all documents produced in the court, the gist of the trial court’s ratio and argument advanced by the counsels.

Though the court couldn’t reason the acceptance of the evidence over the other evidence as to just, the judgment lacked the proper application of mind to the vital evidence and important submissions which are the root of the matter. The assessment could work along the lines of whether a trial court’s assessment of the evidence was correct and whether the evidence the HC accepts is acceptable because of the following reason.

For the aforesaid reason, the SC remanded the appeal for a fresh Hearing in the HC and set aside the order dated 14-2-2012.

Present Status of the Judgement

Still applicable

Comments 

RIGHT to a reasoned judgement has been considered by the SC in several cases some major and recent ones are followed below. The court in the case spelled that a fair consideration to the evidence for an appeal case according to conviction u/s 302 IPC.

About two decades back this Court in State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi[1] had inter alia observed as follows:

We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgement. The final order that the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgement is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgement is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, …….f the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented.”

The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to have stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgement. It may be thought that such orders are passed.

The same was reiterated in the notable case of Mahtab Singh v. The State of Haryana, in which the appellant inflicted axe blows on the complainant’s brother’s neck and cheek, who died as a result of the injuries. The motive was linked in the FIR to a squabble between the parties four days earlier while they were inebriated. An FIR was filed. The cops arrived and took charge of the case goods. According to the FSL report, the appellant was arrested and made a disclosure statement, which culminated in the recovery of the weapons and blood-stained clothes.

According to the autopsy report, he died as a result of hemorrhagic shock caused by the cut on his neck. The Supreme Court was disturbed to note that, after briefly mentioning the testimony of the witnesses, the High Court recorded the conclusion in four lines in the broadest terms and dismissed the appeal challenging the trial court’s order of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment..[2]

Moreover in the State of Rajasthan v. Firoz Khan Alis Arif Khan[3] where the state of Rajasthan reached the application to special leave against the final judgement of order  by the Divisional bench of the high court wherein the appellant was prosecuted and try to the commission of an offence of Murder of one around 11 years and under Section 302 of IPC. It was reiterated that the non-application of mind was visible as the order neither set out the facts nor the submissions of the parties, the findings and nor the reasons as to why the leave to file an appeal was declined to the appeal. Therefore the court set aside the order and ordered a fresh investigation. [4]

In Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia[5], a murder accused was granted bail by the Rajasthan High Court. The order granting bail under Section 439 CrPC was assailed by the defacto complainant before the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, the bench remarked that the High Court’s order fails to notice key facts and demonstrates a failure to apply one’s mind to the gravity of the offence and the conditions mentioned before that should have been considered.

In the order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier bail application has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.

Conclusion

Through the case, followed by the pattern of cases, we find that the courts accrue the right to a reasonable order. The reasonability is discernible by a fair consideration of the evidence, witness testimony and judgement of sessions.

The Majjal Singh case, therefore, acts as a landmark to protect the right of the accused and prevent the collapse of justice by making the Appellate court a “2-min audience” for criminal appeals and bail matters.

End Notes

[1] State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi [(1984) 1 SCC 596]

[2]Mehtab Singh v. State of Haryana,  Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2022 | 6 Jan 2022

[3] State of Rajasthan v. Firoz Khan Alis Arif Khan(2016)12 SCC 734.

[4] State of Rajasthan v. Firoz Khan, (2016) 12 SCC 734

[5] Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1843 of 2019 @SLP (Crl.) No. 6339 of 2019


This article was contributed by Sukanya N.


Attention all law students!

Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?

Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the coolest legal community around!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.