State of M.P. v. Sughar Singh & Ors.
ORDER
o The Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in the State of Madhya
Pradesh tried eight accused persons for the offence under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the l.P.C., Section 326
read with Section 149 of the l.P.C. and other allied offences.
All the accused were found guilty of the offences charged
E against them and for the main offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the l.P.C. all were
convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and
for the remaining offences they were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment. The accused persons preferred two
appeals before the High Court of Judicature of Madhya
F Pradesh, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos.242/1991 and 253 of
1991. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh by its judgment dated 3.1.2003 set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed against the accused who
were the appellants before it. Aggrieved by the same, the State
G preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.1362-1363 of 2004. Though
there were eight accused persons, only four accused were
arrayed as party respondents in the said appeals namely,
Sughar, Laxman, Onkar and Ramesh. Other accused, namely,
Bhoja, Raghubir, Puran and Balbir were not impleaded as
STATE OF M.P. v. SUGHAR SINGH & ORS. 161
respondents in these Criminal Appeals and consequently A
notices were not issued to them. This Court, by judgment on
7th November, 2008 in the aforesaid Criminal Appeals,
reversed the acquittal of the accused by the High Court and
found them guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304
Part-II read with Section 149 of the l.P.C. and sentenced them B
to undergo imprisonment for a period of six years. The
conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under
Section 148 as also Section 326 read with the Section 149 of
the l.P.C. and the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court in
regard to the said offences was upheld by this Court. c
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The
respondent State, though served with a notice through standing
counsel, has not chosen to enter appearance.
These Curative Petitions have been filed by accused No.2 o
(Raghubir) and by accused no.4 and 5 (Sughar Singh and
Laxman) on the ground that acquittal of Bhoja, Raghubir, Puran
and Balbir have been reversed without affording an opportunity
of being heard. We see that there is serious violation of
principles of natural justice as the acquittal of all the accused
has been set aside even though only four of them were made
respondents before this Court and the others were not heard.
We are, therefore, constrained to recall the judgment passed
by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1362-1363 of 2004 on
7th November, 2008.
Consequently, the accused Sughar Singh, Laxman, Onkar
and Ramesh, if they are in custody, are directed to be released
forthwith.
E I
In the result, these Curative Petitions are disposed of and G
the Criminal Appeal Nos.1362-1363 of 2004 are restored to
the file for being heard afresh with a direction that the other four
accused (Bhoja, Raghubir, Puran and Balbir) be impleaded as
respondents and all accused be served with fresh notices.
R.P. Curative Petitions disposed of. H