JAGANNATH CHAUDHARY Vs. RAMAYAN SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on May 09,2002

JAGANNATH CHOUDHARY Appellant
VERSUS
RAMAYAN SINGH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MENAKA MOHANTY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
M. SOMANATHAN VS. M. KUSTU PATRA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
S JAYAPAL VS. PERIYASAMMY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-494] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-82] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV VS. STATE OF U P & 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-209] [REFERRED]
PRAGTI DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. & 8 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-123] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI AGARWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-229] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHAL KUMAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-275] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS MALL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-487] [REFERRED TO]
MANTOSH ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
DUKHRAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-315] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASAD VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MURAT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-221] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. HUKUM SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BAHADUR SINGH ALIAS LALOO VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-236] [REFERRED]
DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, GHAZIABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
RAIS AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-353] [REFERRED TO]
RAHIS AHMAD VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-433] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI BALA SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-70] [REFERRED]
RADHIKA KUSHWAHA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-52] [REFERRED TO]
MURLI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-251] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA RAI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-292] [REFERRED TO]
JOGRAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-480] [REFERRED TO]
IMTYAZ VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
VIKKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-181] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PARTAP VS. RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-1008] [REFERRED]
CHANDRA BAHADUR KOTWAL VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2006-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA VS. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE C I OF POLICE KUTHUPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT [LAWS(KER)-2012-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER PARKASH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-1-113] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH SHARMA & ANR. VS. BABULAL & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
BABU JACOB KUNNATH V. P VS. BABU RAJAN [LAWS(KER)-2008-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
Munish Mehra VS. State Bank of India [LAWS(HPH)-2012-7-282] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-2-476] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-230] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-365] [REFERRED TO]
R K GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-464] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VS. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-186] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VS. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-90] [REFERRED TO]
ISLAM UDDIN BARBHUIYA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-2-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ RANI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-368] [REFERRED TO]
GUDARI RAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ PAL VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-345] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAMEED WARSI VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-361] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWAR DASS AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHAND VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-136] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDER AND (3) ORS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-143] [REFERRED]
KASHMIR SINGH VS. SHAM LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2013-1-745] [REFERRED]
MANBHULA KARMKAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
SEHDEO VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2023-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
KALURAM VS. SUNDERLAL [LAWS(MPH)-2002-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
PHULANGI YADAV VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
IRRIGATION ENGINEERING COMPANY P LTD VS. SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLU VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(P&H)-2018-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM RAMA PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-2-210] [REFERRED]
RAM NARAIN AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-244] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR PRABHAKAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-133] [REFERRED]
RAM KHILARI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-186] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJEET VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-377] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-201] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA LAL ALIAS HARI LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-356] [REFERRED TO]
BHAJJA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-426] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DAS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-156] [REFERRED TO]
PALLAB DAS VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
SURYADEO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTI MALLICK VS. NARAYAN CHANDRA MALLICK [LAWS(ORI)-2013-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-167] [REFERRED TO]
ISTIYAQ AHAMAD VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-129] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOLDALI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL WAHID VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-200] [REFERRED TO]
SONU TOMAR @ MOHIT TOMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-278] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL SAHAI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
POORAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-414] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ACHAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-612] [REFERRED TO]
GANNU YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN ANAND PARASHAR ALIAS RAHUL SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-82] [REFERRED TO]
PARAS NATH YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
AYENESSA BIBI VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2004-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
ASHIMA DEY VS. ABHIJIT DEY [LAWS(CAL)-2004-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD & MUNNI VS. STATE & KANHAIYALAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-8-71] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL WAHEED VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-132] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PHOOL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-422] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P VS. DHARAMPAL SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-168] [REFERRED TO]
PARMANAND VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-163] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHAL PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-164] [REFERRED TO]
BATUK NATH PATHAK VS. TRILOKI NARAYAN PANDEY [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-166] [REFERRED TO]
PURNIMA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-385] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ACHAL SINGH VS. RAM LALI [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
AMMAR KAZIM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-114] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. ARCHANA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-278] [REFERRED TO]
SWETA SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-330] [REFERRED]
ASHWANI VERMA VS. STATE OF U P & 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO DATTURAO AMBHORE VS. JAGANNATH BHIMRAO CHAPKE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
FATMA BEGUM VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-294] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-302] [REFERRED TO]
M K DUBEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-478] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDA TANTUBAI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR PAL VS. SHAKUNTALA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-197] [REFERRED TO]
Signals and Systems I Pvt LTD VS. M Rajini [LAWS(MAD)-2004-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-336] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHVENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-220] [REFERRED]
KRIPA SHANKER PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-150] [REFERRED TO]
RAJMANI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
SNEHRASHMIKANT RAMANBHAI CHAUHAN VS. SHANKERBHAI BHURABHAI RATHAWA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
DR. F. KAMIL VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-496] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI CABLE CO VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-253] [REFERRED TO]
DAKSHIN DINAJPUR ZILLA PARISHAD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-8-57] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-408] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAWATI DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-265] [REFERRED TO]
AKTAR RAZA KADRU VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-374] [REFERRED TO]
KAMTIYA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-521] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH SHARMA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-236] [REFERRED TO]
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI VS. SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM - SIT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
COTT BEVERAGES INC (ROYAL CROWN COLA INTERNATIONAL VS. TRISTAR BEVERAGES PVT LTD , INDORE [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
SABARKANTHA DISTRICT MILK UNIOON LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2005-7-72] [REFERRED TO]
UNNI ALIAS SURESH VS. VARGHESE [LAWS(KER)-2002-6-50] [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN ANAND AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-1-111] [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA THAKUR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
B RADHAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-333] [REFERRED TO]
JOTHIMUTHU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-343] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNI DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-194] [REFERRED TO]
AZAM @ CHHANGE VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-423] [REFERRED TO]
SUBEDAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-502] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-398] [REFERRED TO]
MENOKA MALIK VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2004-6-65] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUAR NANDI VS. DHIREN NANDI [LAWS(CAL)-2007-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
SABITRI BARMAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
ALTAF VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-362] [REFERRED TO]
BANDANA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-122] [REFERRED TO]
BARUN CHANDRA THAKUR VS. MASTER BHOLU [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
CH.RAGHUNANDAN RAO VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-7-9] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Banerjee, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)A significant departure from the regular norm in the matter of pronouncement of judgment is the key factor in the present appeal. Mentioned hereinbefore a significant departure in the matter of pronouncement of judgment - but what is it so significant so as to warrant interference of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution - Before adverting to the same, however, a brief factual reference would be convenient and necessary for appreciation of such a departure - against an order of acquittal recorded by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1992, a revisional application stands filed before the High Court of Judicature at Patna recording therein that on appreciation of evidence the order, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, was totally perverse on the face of the judgment. It is on the basis aforesaid, the learned single Judge in the revisional application in his judgment (impugned before this Court) in three different settings in the body of the judgment stated:
(a) "Be it what it may, I am not going into the merit of the case in depth but on perusal of the impugned judgment particularly paragraph 30 and the materials on records. I also hold that reasonings of acquittal given by the learned Sessions Judge are definitely not proper and justifiable on the face of it and if not justifiable then it may go to the extent of perversity".

(b) "But in the present case I find that four eye-witnesses to the occurrence were found to be present at the scene of occurrence and their presence at the scene of occurrence could not be disbelieved by any plausible or cogent reasons and then discarding the evidence of eye-witnesses had been done by the learned Court below on a week and meek reasons then definitely this Court can interfere as the impugned judgment would affect in the system of delivering justice".

(c) "In that way, without forming an opinion regarding the fate of the case I find that the impugned judgment should not be sustained and must be set aside and the matter be quashed for further consideration in the light of the observation made above. In that way, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the Court below for writing a fresh judgment by giving proper judicial mind to the evidence on record. (Emphasis Supplied) Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 are hereby directed to appear before the learned Court below on 2nd August, 2001 and they should be allowed to go on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge and then an opportunity be given for further argument to both the parties writing a fresh judgment on the materials on record".

(3.)It is this direction as noticed hereinbefore, for writing out a fresh judgment by giving proper judicial mind to the evidence on record and which stands very strongly criticised by the learned senior advocate, Mr. S.B. Sanyal, appearing in support of the appeal and we do find some justification in regard thereto.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.