MATTAR versus STATE OF U.P.

MATTAR versus STATE OF U.P.

The Supreme Court held that the third judge of the High Court failed to independently assess the evidence and provide a reasoned decision. Therefore, the matter is remanded for fresh consideration and a reasoned opinion.

Parties
Appellant: Mattar; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Review of High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; judgment and order of High Court set aside; matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration by a third judge.
Legal Topics
Criminal Appeal, Division Bench Disagreement, Remand, Section 302 IPC, Section 392 Cr PC
Criminal Law Criminal Appeal Division Bench Disagreement Remand Section 302 IPC Section 392 Cr PC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mattar

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Review of High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the opinion of the third judge in case of a split verdict in the High Court must be a reasoned and independent consideration of all relevant evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the third judge of the High Court failed to independently assess the evidence and provide a reasoned decision. Therefore, the matter is remanded for fresh consideration and a reasoned opinion.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; judgment and order of High Court set aside; matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration by a third judge.

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 2091/80 set aside.
  • Case remitted to the High Court for hearing afresh by a third judge for a reasoned and independent opinion.