Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeal allowed; conviction and sentence set asi...

Deepak Rajak v. State of West Bengal

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of 2001
Neutral Citation:(2007) 7 S.C.R. 1024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dr. Arijit Pasayat
  • B. P. Singh
Judgment Date
2007-06-14
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court are set aside, extending the acquittal benefit to the appellant in light of his surrender and the co-accused’s acquittals.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside against the appellant, with extension of acquittal benefit to him in light of co-accused acquittals and subsequent surrender.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Deepak Rajak

Respondents

  • State of West Bengal

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sanjay R. Hedge
  • • Anand Mishra
  • • Abhijit Sengupta

Counsels for Respondents

  • • T. C. Sharma
  • • Neelam Sharma
  • • Rajeev Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

Deepak Rajak v. State of West Bengal concerns an appeal against a murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 201 read with Section 34, and Section 120B of the IPC. All co-accused were tried together; this Court acquitted the co-accused in Mousam Singha Roy and Ors. v. State of West Bengal (2003) 12 SCC 377. The central issue is whether the appellant, who was convicted and later surrendered, is entitled to the benefit of the acquittal of the co-accused on the same facts. The State contends that because the appellant did not surrender initially, the same benefit should not follow. The appellant cites a line of cases dealing with acquittal of co-accused and the extension of benefits to similar offenders. The State counters by citing several earlier decisions, arguing that surrender after conviction is not a guaranteed basis for extending such benefits and that parity should not override the earlier jurisprudence. The court, acknowledging the body of precedent, notes that the general rule may be departed in circumstances where the accused had not surrendered after conviction and did not file an appeal. However, in this case the appellant surrendered and endured two years in custody, which the Court treats as a sufficient basis to extend the acquittal benefit to him as well. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence are set aside.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 read with Section 34 IPCSection 201 read with Section 34 IPCSection 120B IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Benefit of acquittal to co-accused on the same set of facts
  • Surrender after conviction as a condition for extending acquittal benefit

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued for extending the benefit of acquittal accorded to co-accused on the same facts and charges. He relied on Mousam Singha Roy and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and other precedents suggesting parity in treatment where co-accused are acquitted, especially since he subsequently surrendered and remained in custody for over two years. The core position pressed was that surrender and similar factual circumstances justify extending the acquittal benefit to him as well, despite the initial non-surrender.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that the appellant did not surrender at the time of conviction and thus should not be entitled to the acquittal benefit accorded to co-accused. It relied on earlier decisions holding that absence of surrender after conviction bars such relief and argued that extending the benefit would undermine the settled principles. The State emphasized consistency with prior rulings that link non-surrender to loss of entitlement and urged that the present case should be governed by those precedents.

Cited Precedents (15)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Mousam Singha Roy and Ors. v. State of West Bengal[2003] 12 SCC 377PositiveAnchor decision recognizing that acquittal of co-accused on the same facts can influence similarly situated accused.
Raja Ram and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1994] 2 SCC 568Mentioned OnlyCited as part of the broader jurisprudence on acquittal issues but not applied unmodified in the present fact pattern.
Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab[1995] Supp 4 SCC 558DistinguishedCited in context of later-surrender distinctions; present case distinguishes its holdings.
Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P.[1999] 7 SCC 620DistinguishedNot controlling in the surrendered-fact pattern of the present case.
Jayantibhai Bhenkar v. State of Gujarat[2002] 8 SCC 165DistinguishedApplied differentiate on surrender aspect; not followed as to the present appellant.
Bijoy Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar[2002] 9 SCC 147DistinguishedPlaced in the category of decisions not controlling given the surrender fact.
Gurucharan Kumar and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan[2003] 2 SCC 698DistinguishedNot treated as controlling due to present case’s surrender.
Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra[2003] 2 SCC 708DistinguishedDistinguished on the same ground.
Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar[2003] 4 SCC 128DistinguishedDifferentiated for surrender facts.
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana[2003] 11 SCC 241DistinguishedNot controlling due to present surrender circumstances.
Hem Raj and Anr. v. State of Punjab[2003] 12 SCC 241DistinguishedSurrender-based distinction applied.
Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu v. State of A.P.(2004) 10 SCC 152DistinguishedNot binding in light of surrender condition.
Mohinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab[2004] 12 SCC 311DistinguishedApplied surrender-based limitation.
Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar[2005] 10 SCC 336DistinguishedNot applicable due to different factual posture (surrender requirement).
Munna Kumar v. State of Bihar[2005] 12 SCC 209DistinguishedFocused on surrender conditions; not controlling in present scenario.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Deepak Rajak v. State of West Bengal and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A _<_ r ## DEEPAK RAJAK v. ## ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL ## JUNE 14, 2007 ## B ## [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDB.P. SINGH,JJ.] _Penal Code, 1860-s. 302 rlw s. 34 ands. 201 r/w s. 34-Conviction under-By courts below-Co-accused acquitted by Supreme Court-_ c _[Appellant-accused seeking benefit ][of ][acquittal ][of ][co-accused-State ] contending that he was not entitled to the benefit as he had initially not surrendered-Held: Accused was entitled to the benefit of acquittal of coaccused, in view of the fact that he later surrendered._ In the present appeal, appellant-accused who was convicted u/ss. 302 D _[rlw.s. ]_[34 ][and ][201 r/w ][s. ][34 ][IPC ][by courts below contended ][that ][he should be ] granted benefit of acquittal of the co-accused. Respondent-State distinguished the case of the appellant on the ground that he had initially not surrendered. However, appellant subsequently surrendered and suffered custody of more than two years. E ## Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The law of giving benefit of acquittal of similarly placed coaccused on the same set of facts and on similar accusations, may be departed in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended. Hence conviction and sentence recorded by courts below is set aside. (Paras 5, 6 and 7] [1024-C-E[ F _Raja Ram and Ors._ v. _State of MP._ [1994] 2 SCC 568; _Kashmira Singh_ v. _State of Punjab,_ (1995) Supp 4 SCC 558; _Dandu Lakshmi Reddy_ v. _State of_ G _A.P.,_ [1999) 7 SCC 69; _Jayantibhai Bhenkar_ v. _State of Gi:jarat,_ (2002] 8 SCC 165; _Bijoy Singh and Anr._ v. _State of Bihar,_ (20021 9 SCC 147; _Gurucharan Kumar and Anr._ v. _State of Rajasthan,_ [2003] 2 SCC 698; _Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed_ v. _State of Maharashtra,_ (2003] (2) SCC 708; _Suresh Chaudhary,_ v. _State of Bihar_ 2003 (4) SCC 128; _Pawan Kumar_ v. _State of Haryana,_ [2003] 1022 H _<_ _.,t_ -f DEEP AK RAJ AK _v._ ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL (PASA Y AT. J. ( I 023 11 sec 241; _Hem Raj and Anr._ v. _Seate of Punjab,_ (20031 12 sec 241; _Vijrapu_ A _Sambayya Naidu_ v. _State of A.P._ 2004 (IO) SCC 152; _Mohinder Singh and Anr._ v. _State of Punjab and Ors .._ (2004( 1 SCC 311; _Uma Shank.or Gopalik.a v. State of Bihar_ 2005 10 SCC 336 and _Munno Kumar_ v. _State of Bihar,_ (2005\ 12 sec 209, referred to. > CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of B 2001. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2001 of the High Court of Calcutta in C.A. No. 17 of 2000. Sanjay R. Hedge, Anand, Ail Mishra, Abhijit Sengupta for the C Appellants. -. T.C. Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Courwt was delivered by D DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Appellant faced trial alongwith several others for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 201 read with Section 34 and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). 2. The factual details need not detain us as undisputedly the co- E accused have been acquitted by this Court in _Mousam Singha Roy and Ors._ v. _State of WB._ [2003] 12 SCC 377]. The effect of such acquittal _vis-a-vis_ similarly situated co-accused has been considered by this Court in several cases. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on various decisions F of this Court contending that the benefit of acquittal should be extended to the appellant. ) 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the appellant did not surrender initially and therefore decisions relied upon may G not have any relevance. He relied on the decisions in _Raja Ram & Ors._ v. _State of M.P._ [1994] 2 SCC 568; _Kashmira Singh_ v. _State of Punjab_ [1995] . Supp 4 SCC 558); _Dandu Lakshmi Reddy_ v. _State of A.P._ [ 1999] 7 SCC 620; _Jayantibhai Bhenk.ar_ v. _State of Gujarat,_ [2002] SCC 165; _Bijoy Singh & Anr._ v. _State of Bihar,_ [2002] 9 SCC 147; _Gurucharan Kumar & Anr._ v. _State of_ H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R. 1024 A _Rajasthan,_ [2003] 2 SCC 698: _Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed_ v. _State of Maharashtra,_ [2003] 2 SCC 708): _Suresh Chaudhary_ v. _State of Bihar,_ '[2003] 4 SCC 128); _Pawan Kumar v.State of Haryana,_ [2003] 11 SCC 241; _Hem Raj & Anr._ v. _State of Punjab,_ [2003] 12 SCC 241; _Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu_ v. _State of A.P._ (2004] IO SCC 152; _Mohinder Singh & Anr._ v. _State of Punjab_ B _and Ors.,_ [2004] 12 sec 311; _Uma Shankar Gopalika_ V. _State of Bihar,_ [2005] IO sec 336 and _Munna Kumar_ v. _State of Bihar,_ [2005] 12 SCC 209. The appellant subsequently surrendered and has suffered custody for more than two years. 5. The position in law as to what happens in case of acquittal of C similarly placed co-accused on the same set of facts and on similar accusations has been considered by this Court in several cases. 6. A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal D in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended. 7. The appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is set aside. KKT. Appeal allowed.