TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether inordinate delay in pronouncing a reserved judgment after conclusion of arguments is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure and speedy adjudication; (ii) whether, on the evidence, the appellants could be convicted for murder with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or whether the conviction was sustainable only to the extent of unlawful assembly / rioting and arms offences.
Issue (i): whether inordinate delay in pronouncing a reserved judgment after conclusion of arguments is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure and speedy adjudication
Analysis: The reserved judgment remained undecided for an excessive period after hearing was complete. The delay was treated as antithetical to the requirement of fair and reasonable procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as capable of undermining confidence in the administration of justice. The Court held that once hearing is over and only pronouncement remains, there is no justification for prolonged inaction, and laid down administrative guidelines to ensure prompt pronouncement of reserved judgments.
Conclusion: The delay was held impermissible, and directions were issued to secure timely pronouncement of reserved judgments.
Issue (ii): whether, on the evidence, the appellants could be convicted for murder with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or whether the conviction was sustainable only to the extent of unlawful assembly / rioting and arms offences
Analysis: The ocular evidence of the injured and eye witnesses, supported by the recovery of weapons and the medical evidence, was accepted against the principal assailants. However, as regards the remaining accused, the evidence did not establish that they ed the common object to commit murder so as to attract constructive liability for murder under Section 149. The Court held that the common object proved was participation in an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, sufficient for rioting, but not murder. The hostile witness testimony did not displace the otherwise reliable evidence, and minor discrepancies regarding weapons and delayed transmission of the FIR were not sufficient to discredit the prosecution.
Conclusion: Conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 was set aside for the remaining accused, while conviction was altered to Section 148 read with Section 149 and the arms conviction was maintained; the principal assailant's conviction was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The Court partly affirmed and partly altered the convictions, sustaining the murder conviction of the principal assailants while reducing the liability of the other appellants to unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and maintaining the arms convictions, along with issuing systemic directions against undue delay in pronouncement of judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: Unreasonable delay in pronouncing a reserved judgment offends the constitutional requirement of fair and speedy procedure, and constructive liability for murder under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be imposed only where the common object to commit that offence is affirmatively established by the evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
