Supreme Court revives appeal in murder case due to High Court’s improper dismissal: Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2025)

Date of the Judgment: February 27, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 287
Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI., Sanjay Kumar, J.

Did the High Court err in dismissing an appeal related to a murder case without properly examining the evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar. The case revolves around the murder of Ishwar/Ishwer Chander, and the subsequent trial and appeal. The Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, found that the High Court had indeed erred in its approach, leading to the revival of the appeal for a fresh hearing.

Case Background:

The case originates from an incident where three individuals entered a shop, and one of them fatally shot Ishwar/Ishwer Chander, the father of the informant/complainant, Sanjay Kumar. Megnath Koiri (Respondent No. 5) was apprehended at the scene with injuries. The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimonies of eyewitnesses, including Sanjay Kumar (PW-8) and Kalam (PW-7), along with other witnesses like Dinesh Prasad (PW-6) and Krishna Chandra Dubey (PW-10), the investigating officer.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sanjay Kumar without calling for the trial court records. The High Court referenced a statement made by Megnath Koiri under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was not even produced in court. Additionally, the High Court noted that Sanjay Kumar’s version was not corroborated by other staff members, overlooking the cross-examination of Dinesh Prasad (PW-6) after he was declared hostile.

Legal Framework:

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the recording of confessions and statements by a Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate.
• Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: These sections pertain to the relevancy of judgments of courts of justice when such judgments are offered as evidence.
• Section 391 of the Cr.P.C.: This section empowers the appellate court to take further evidence or direct it to be taken.
• Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section grants the judge the power to put questions or order production.
• Arms Act, 1959: This act deals with arms and ammunitions.

Arguments:

Appellant (Sanjay Kumar)’s Arguments:

• ✓ The High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without examining the trial court records.
• ✓ The statement under Section 164 CrPC of Respondent No. 5 was improperly considered as it was not produced in court.
• ✓ The High Court failed to properly consider the deposition of Dinesh Prasad (PW-6) during his cross-examination.
• ✓ Ashok Kumar Bhattacharya (PW-3) corroborated the fact that the deceased fell on the chair outside and that one person was apprehended.
• ✓ The delay in the trial led to witnesses not being able to identify Respondent No. 5, but his apprehension at the spot is supported by the depositions of Sanjay Kumar (PW-8) and Krishna Chandra Dubey (PW-10).

Respondent (State of Bihar)’s Arguments:

(Note: The respondent’s arguments are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. However, we can infer some points based on the High Court’s reasoning):

• ✓ The High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal was justified based on the available evidence.
• ✓ The statement of Sanjay Kumar (PW-8) was not sufficiently corroborated by other staff members.
• ✓ Respondent No. 5 was acquitted in the trial related to the offence under the Arms Act, 1959.
• ✓ The ballistic report of the pistol allegedly recovered from Respondent No. 5 was not produced in the Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant/informant/complainant, Sanjay Kumar, in limine?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities:

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and principles:

• Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: These sections relate to the relevancy of judgments. The Court noted that the High Court failed to consider the relevancy of the judgment of acquittal under the Arms Act, 1959, to the present case.
• Section 391 of the Cr.P.C.: This section empowers the appellate court to take further evidence. The appellant referred to this section, but the Supreme Court did not delve deeply into it as it was ordering a remand.
• Section 165 of the 1872 Act: This section relates to the power of the court to put questions or order production. The appellant referred to this section, but the Supreme Court did not delve deeply into it as it was ordering a remand.

Judgment:

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Court referred to these sections to emphasize that the High Court should have considered the relevancy of the judgment of acquittal under the Arms Act, 1959.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the High Court’s failure to properly assess the evidence and follow due process. The fact that the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, without calling for trial court records or adequately considering witness testimonies, weighed heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision. The improper reliance on a statement not presented in court and the inadequate consideration of witness depositions further solidified the Court’s view that the High Court had erred.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Key Takeaways:

• ✓ High Courts must thoroughly examine the evidence and trial court records before dismissing appeals, especially in criminal cases.
• ✓ Improperly considering evidence not presented in court can lead to the setting aside of a judgment.
• ✓ Courts should carefully assess the relevancy of prior judgments to the case at hand.

Directions:

The Supreme Court directed the parties to appear before the High Court on 24.03.2025. The High Court was instructed to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously, as it was an old matter.

Development of Law:

The ratio decidendi of the case is that High Courts must adhere to principles of natural justice and due process while deciding on appeals. The High Court should consider all evidences on record before dismissing any appeal.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar underscores the importance of due process and thorough examination of evidence in appellate proceedings. By setting aside the High Court’s order and remanding the case for a fresh hearing, the Supreme Court has ensured that the appeal will be decided on its merits, in accordance with the law.

Category:

• Criminal Law
• Criminal Appeal
• Murder
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Sections 40 to 44, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Section 165, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 391, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Arms Act, 1959

FAQ:

1. What was the main issue in the Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar case?
   The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing an appeal related to a murder case without properly examining the evidence.
2. What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
   The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and revived the appeal, directing the High Court to hear the case on its merits.
3. Why did the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order?
   The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to properly examine the evidence on record, including considering a statement not presented in court and overlooking key aspects of witness testimonies.
4. What is the significance of this judgment?
   This judgment underscores the importance of due process and thorough examination of evidence in appellate proceedings. It reinforces the principle that High Courts must adhere to principles of natural justice while deciding appeals.