# SIU1ikli Mch1. Ali v. Stott of Maharashtra, A.l.R. 1973 S.C. 43 and Kapur

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 567
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-08-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1973
- **Bench:** R. Khanna, A. Alagiiuswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/siu1ikli-mch1-ali-v-stott-of-maharashtra-a-l-r-1973-s-c-43-and-kapur-6006
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

567
Code oj Criminal Proceaure 1898, s. 421-High Court's power 10 disntiss
appeal in limine.
Th appellant was convicted of murder by the Trial Court. He appealed to the
High Court contending, inter alia, that he had not been mentioned aa an offender
by two of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.. The High Court dismis!ICd the
apptal in limint!.
Allowing the .appeal to this Court,
HELD : It is true that under s. 421 Code of Criminal Procedure Code the
High Court can dismi~ an appeal in limine if, on a perusal of the petition of
appeal and the judgment appealed from, it were. to form the vie\V that there was
no sufficieQt reason for its interference. At the same time, it is now settled law,
repeatedly laid down by this Court in a series of decisions, that the HiJ!h Conrt
would not be justified in dismissing summarily and without a s~aking order
an appeal which raises arguable questions either an points of law or on points
·of fact.
f569Al
In the present case the appellant had an arguable case and the High Court
was not justified in di!imi&sing summarily the appeal of the appellanL
SIU1ikli Mch1. Ali v. Stott of Maharashtra, A.l.R. 1973 S.C. 43 and Kapur ..
clwnJ Kesrimal Jai11 v. State of Maharashtrq. A.lR. 1973 S.C. 243, applied.
Chittaranjan Das v, Stale of West Bengal, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 237, held inlpplic·
E
able.
'
G
H

## Text

I
c
D
KRISHNA VITHJJ SUROSHE
p,
STAIB OF MAHARASHTRA
August 30, 1973
[H, R. KHANNA AND A. ALAGIIUSWAMI, JJ.J
567
Code oj Criminal Proceaure 1898, s. 421-High Court's power 10 disntiss
appeal in limine.
Th appellant was convicted of murder by the Trial Court. He appealed to the
High Court contending, inter alia, that he had not been mentioned aa an offender
by two of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.. The High Court dismis!ICd the
apptal in limint!.
Allowing the .appeal to this Court,
HELD : It is true that under s. 421 Code of Criminal Procedure Code the
High Court can dismi~ an appeal in limine if, on a perusal of the petition of
appeal and the judgment appealed from, it were. to form the vie\V that there was
no sufficieQt reason for its interference. At the same time, it is now settled law,
repeatedly laid down by this Court in a series of decisions, that the HiJ!h Conrt
would not be justified in dismissing summarily and without a s~aking order
an appeal which raises arguable questions either an points of law or on points
·of fact.
f569Al
In the present case the appellant had an arguable case and the High Court
was not justified in di!imi&sing summarily the appeal of the appellanL
SIU1ikli Mch1. Ali v. Stott of Maharashtra, A.l.R. 1973 S.C. 43 and Kapur ..
clwnJ Kesrimal Jai11 v. State of Maharashtrq. A.lR. 1973 S.C. 243, applied.
Chittaranjan Das v, Stale of West Bengal, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 237, held inlpplic·
E
able.
'
G
H
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 96
of 1973.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and
ordea' dated
4th December, 1972 of the Bombay High Courf at Bombay in Qiminal•Appeal No. 14~9 of 1972.
Y. S. Chille, V. N. Ganpule and P. C. Kapur, for the ~ppellant,
H. R. Khanna and M. N. S/lt'ofl, for the respondent
1 he. Judgment of the Court was deUvered by
KHANNA, I.
J anardhan Narayan Suroshe and Krishna Vithu
Suroshe were convicte,1' by the Additional Sessiona J ~
Thana under
section 302 Indian· Pena1 ·Gide on the alleghtion that they had came.I
the deiith of Bhaskar Narayan Suroshe. Each of them was sentenced
to: undergo impri$0lllllent for life. Krishna Vithu Suroshe filed an
appeal against the judgment of the trial court but the same. was diSllliss!id summarily by the. Bombay High Court. Krishna Vrtbu SurO!!he
thereafter filed the present appeal ro this Court by special leave.
At
tlie time the leave was granted it Wll$ directed that the appeal wonk!
be" limited qnly to the ground wherein .it had been stated that the High
Court should not bave dismissed the· appeal in /imine.
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19741 1 s.c.ll.
Bhaskar Narayan Suroshe was the brother of Janardhan Narayan
Suroshe accused. The housCf! of Bhaskar Narayan Suroshe and
Janardhan Narayan Suroshe are situated in village Raite and there
intervenes a small lane between the two houses.
On March 24, 1972
at about 9 p.m., it is stated, the two accused started abusing Bhaskar
deceased.
Bhaskar then came to the. kitchen of his house and standing in the door of the kitchen he also abused the accused. The exchange
of abuses went on for about 10-15
minutes.
J anardhan accused,
according to the prosecution, than came forward and gave a b'.ow with·
a long knife in the abdomen of Bhaskar:
J anardhan also tried to
pull Bhaskar. Krishna Vithu Suroshe appellant then gave a blow
with a Jong knife in the back'of Bhaskar.
The occurrence, it is stated,
was witnessed by Parvatibai and J anabai, the two wives of Bhaskar
deceased as well as by his daughter Lata. Pandurang, servant of
Bhaskar, was also attracted to the place of occurrence.
Bhaskar was
thereafter taken in a cart to Govili dispensary.
The doctor incharge
of the dispensary advised that Bhaskar should be removed to the
hospital. Bhaskar was thereafter taken in a taxi to Kalyan but by the
time they arrived in the hospital at Kalyan, Bhaskar was declared to
be dead.
Report about the occurrence was lodged by Parvatibai at
Kalyan police station at 11.45 p.m.
·
At the trial Parvtibai, Janabai and Lata gave oCular evidence
regarding the. occurrence. The appellant in his statement under section
342 Code of Criminal Procedure denied his presence at the sceoc ·of
oocurrence !llld his participation in the assault on Bhaskar deceased.
According 1o the appellant, he was falsely involved in this case at the
instance of Haribabu with whom the appellant had business rivalry.
Haribabu is another brother of Bhaskar deceased.
The tr_ial court accepted the prosecution allegations and convicted
and senteuced the accused as mentioned earlier:
Mr. Chitale on behalf of the appellant has urged before . us .tltat
th\l appeal _filed by the appellant before the High Court raised arguable
and substantial points and the High Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine.
The learned counsel in this connection has
invited our attention to that part of the judgment of the trial court
which deals with the evidence of Janabai and Lala PWs.
It would
appear from the judgment of the trial court that Janabai and· Lata
only' :saw the infliction of the blow on the deceased ·.by Janardhan
· .accused. · JanaOai and Lata did not see Krishna Vithu Suroshe appellant at the time of the occurrence much less did they see the appellant infiicting knife blow on the back of Bhaskar· deceased~ The evi_clence of Janabai and Lata, it is urged, create5 considerable· doubt
regarding ·the correctness of the ·statement of Parvatibai in so far as
she has stated that the appellant too was present at ·the timtl of the
occurrence an:d he gave a knife· blow in the back of Bhaskar deceased,
It is also pointed out that the injury on the back ·of the deceased could
a1sO 'be· caused ·with the ·same weapon· with· which Janardhan gave· the
blow in the abdomen of the deceased:
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
-
B
<
t
D
..
K. v. SUROSHE v. MAHARASHTRA (Khanna, J.)
569
In our opinion the appellant had an arguable case and the High
Court was not justified in dismissing·sunimaril:f the· appeal of the appel·
Ian!.
It is true that under section 421 Code of Criminal Procedure
the High Court can diS.niiss an appeal in /imine if on a perusal of the
petition of appeal and the judgment· appealed from it were to form the
view that there was no sufficient reason for its interference.
At the
same time, it is now settled law, repeatedly laid dowp by this Court in
a series of decisions, that the High Court would not be justified iJ\
dismissing summarily and without a speaking order an appeal which
raises arguable questions either on points of law or on points of fact
(see in this context two of our recent decisioDcS: Shaikh Mohd. Ali v.
State of Mahararhtra( 1) and Kapurchand Kesrimal Jain v. State of
Maharashtra (2) .
·
Mr. Khanna on behalf of the State has invited our attention to the
decision of this Court in Chi11aranjan Das v. State of West Bengal(').
There is nothing in this judgment which runs oounter to the view ex·
pre6sed· by this Court _in the two cases mentioned earlier by us. What
was laid .down in Chittaranjan Das's case was that the High Court is
not justified in granting a certificate of fitness for appeal on the gwund
that the criminal appeal had been dismissed summarily.
We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the order of the High
Court dismissing the appeal in limine and direct that the appeal be
disposed of in due course according to law.
G.C.
(!) A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 43.
(2) A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 243,
Appeal alloll'ed .
., '~ ..
(3) [1964]'3 S.C.R. 237.