Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 818   OF 2013 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 1300 OF 2013]

Majjal … APPELLANT

Versus

State of Haryana … RESPONDENT

O R D E R  

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal,  by  grant  of  special  leave,  is  directed  

against the judgment and order dated 14/2/2012 passed by  

the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  

dismissing Criminal Appeal No.920-DB of 2009 filed by the  

appellant.

Page 2

3. Briefly  stated  the  prosecution  case  is  that  the  

complainant  –  Ramjani  (PW-4)   made  a  complaint  with  

police station Punhana against the appellant and others.  It  

was  alleged   in  the  complaint  that  during  the  night  

intervening 30/10/1995 and 31/10/1995 the appellant along  

with his sons namely Harun, Rajak, Khurshid and Bhati and  

other  persons  arrived  at  the  house  of   Deen  Dar  with  

common object to  kidnap Farida daughter of Deen Dar.  The  

appellant  and  his  associates  were  armed  with  guns  and  

country made pistols.   They tried to take away Farida on  

which  she  raised  cries.  Consequently  Abdul  Karim son  of  

Deen Dar, Lal  Khan(PW-3) and Khurshid  sons of  Rojdar,  

Deen Dar son of Chand Khan and Roshni   arrived at the  

house of Deen Dar along with the complainant and tried to  

rescue  Farida.  At that time  the appellant fired a shot at Lal  

Khan, Harun fired a shot at Abdul Karim  and Khurshid fired  

a shot at Deen Dar.  Injuries were caused to Roshni with  

lathis.   Thereafter  Mehboob son of  Rojdar  came.  He was  

abducted  by  the  appellant  and  his  son  Khurshid.   Abdul  

2

Page 3

Karim expired at the spot due to firearm injury.   Deen Dar  

also got injured.     Thereafter, the assailants fled away from  

the scene of occurrence.    

3. On  the  basis  of  the  information  given  by PW-4,  FIR  

No.277 was registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307,  

364, 323, 120B of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act against  

the appellant and investigation commenced. On completion  

of  investigation,  charge-sheet  was  filed  against  the  

appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges  

and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its  

case, examined as many as 16 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-16).  

The prosecution exhibited 29 documents (Exhibits P1 to P29)  

in evidence. No defence evidence was adduced.  

4. Upon perusal of the evidence, the trial court convicted  

the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the  

IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a  

fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to further undergo simple  

imprisonment for a period of 3  months.  The appellant was  

3

Page 4

directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to injured Lal  

Khan.  As  already  stated,  the  appeal  preferred  by  the  

appellant  was  dismissed  by  the  High  Court.   Hence,  this  

appeal by special leave.  

5. We  have  heard  Shri  Dushyant  Parashar,  learned  

counsel for the appellant  as well as Shri Narender Hooda,  

Sr. Assistant Advocate General for the State.  

6. In this case what strikes us is the cryptic nature of the  

High Court’s observations on the merits of the case.  The  

High Court has set out the facts in detail.  It has mentioned  

the  names  and  numbers  of  the  prosecution  witnesses.  

Particulars of all documents produced in the court along with  

their exhibit numbers have been mentioned. Gist of the trial  

court’s  observations  and  findings  are  set  out  in  a  long  

paragraph.   Then  there  is  a  reference  to  the  arguments  

advanced  by  the  counsel.  Thereafter,  without  any  proper  

analysis of the evidence almost in a summary way the High  

Court has dismissed the appeal.   The High Court’s cryptic  

4

Page 5

reasoning is  contained in  two short paragraphs.  We find  

such  disposal  of  a  criminal  appeal  by  the  High  Court  

particularly in a case involving charge under Section 302 of  

the IPC where the accused is sentenced to life imprisonment  

unsatisfactory.   It  was  necessary  for  the  High  Court  to  

consider  whether  the  trial  court’s  assessment  of  the  

evidence  and  its  opinion  that  the  appellant  must  be  

convicted  deserve  to  be  confirmed.   This  exercise  is  

necessary  because  the  personal  liberty  of  an  accused  is  

curtailed because of the conviction.   The High Court must  

state its reasons why it is accepting the evidence on record.  

The  High  Court’s  concurrence  with  the  trial  court’s  view  

would be acceptable only if it is supported by reasons.  In  

such appeals it is a court of first appeal.  Reasons cannot be  

cryptic.  By  this,  we  do  not  mean  that  the  High  Court  is  

expected to write an unduly long treatise.   The judgment  

may be short but must reflect proper application of mind to  

vital  evidence and important submissions which go to the  

root of the matter.  Since this exercise is not conducted by  

5

Page 6

the High Court, the appeal deserves to be remanded for a  

fresh hearing after setting aside the impugned order.  

7. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment and order  

dated 14/2/2012 and remand the appeal to the High Court.  

We request the High Court to hear the appeal afresh and  

deliver  judgment  in  light  of  our  above  observations  as  

expeditiously as possible as the appellant is in jail and he is  

stated to be 84 years of age.  We make it clear that we have  

not considered the merits of the case. The appeal shall be  

disposed of independently and on merits.  

8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.  

……………………………………………..J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

……………………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

……………………………………………..J. (SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE)

NEW DELHI, July 2, 2013.

6