The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the plea urging that as the composition of the Bench called upon to pass sentence is different from the one that had delivered the judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2020, the appeals should be heard afresh. The Court observed that it would indeed be a travesty of justice to hold that decision dated 29.01.2020 whereby the respondents have been convicted should be set to naught merely because one of the Members of the Bench delivering the decision has demitted office on superannuation.
Brief Facts:
The accused-respondents were acquitted in FIR dated 27.12.1999 under Sections 302/201/323/312/170/120B/364/212/148 read with Section 149 IPC. Two appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.11.2013 and four other matters pertaining to FIR No.955 were pending before this Court. Appeals were filed challenging the acquittal of the accused/respondents. The appeals were allowed by a division bench of the High Court having one of the judges from the current bench. The accused-respondents were held guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/120B/364/148 read with Section 149 IPC. Criminal Revision was dismissed.
Due to the outbreak of the pandemic COVID-19, there was restricted hearing of matters before the court and present appeals for the purpose of sentencing could not be listed before the Bench. In the interregnum, one of the members of the Bench demitted the office after attaining the age of superannuation. The matters were ultimately listed before another Division Bench and various orders to ensure the presence of the respondents were passed. When the matter came up before this Court on 21.04.2023, learned counsel for the respondents raised a plea that as decision dated 29.01.2020 convicting the respondents is not a complete judgment and the composition of this Bench is different from the one delivering judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2020 inasmuch as one of the members of that Bench has since demitted office, the appeals should be heard afresh.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that the judgment of conviction was passed on 29.01.2020 in open court and the same has been duly signed by both the then members of the Bench. The matter was adjourned to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondents before sentencing. Any rehearing of the appeals would amount to review which is not permissible.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents argued that the judgment dated 29.01.2020 not being a judgment, as the order of sentence has not been passed, the appeals should be heard afresh. Subsequent Division Bench, it was urged, cannot pass an order of sentence to complete the judgment because there has to be an application of mind for the purpose of sentencing. The severity of the sentence will necessarily have to be considered and the same cannot be done without affording an opportunity of being re-heard to the parties.
Observations of the Court:
The Court said that the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents is devoid of any merit. The Court observed that in the present case, due opportunity of hearing was afforded to all the parties including the accused-respondents at the time of hearing of the appeal. It is only thereafter that decision of conviction was duly pronounced on 29.01.2020.
The Court remarked that it would indeed be a travesty of justice to hold that appeals should be heard afresh while ignoring the decision dated 29.01.2020 or that decision dated 29.01.2020 whereby the respondents have been convicted should be set to naught merely because one of the Members of the Bench delivering the decision, has demitted office on superannuation. Learned counsel for the accused respondents has been unable to point out any ground, whatsoever, to adopt such a course.
The decision of the Court:
The Punjab & Haryana High Court, rejecting the plea, held that there is no ground to list the appeals for re-hearing while setting to naught decision dated 29.01.2020.
Case Title: Sheela vs Brahamjit & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Lisa Gill and Hon’ble Justice Archana Puri
Case no.: IOIN-CRA-AD-30 of 2016
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. A. P. S. Deol
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vinod Ghai
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
