BABU AND 3 OTHERS versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH

BABU AND 3 OTHERS versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH

The certificate of fitness granted under Art. 134(1)(c) was improper as the High Court did not identify a substantial question of law or principle, but rather differences in factual appreciation; s. 429 CrPC allows the third judge complete freedom in resolving such differences. The confirmed convictions and sentences were justified upon proper appraisal of evidence and do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.

Parties
Appellants: Babu and 3 others; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 January 1965
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From High Court Judgment and Order Dated August 21, 1963, Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 2271 and 2272 of 1962
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Code of Criminal Procedure S. 429, Constitution of India Art. 134(1)(c), Appellate Jurisdiction, Grant of Certificate of Fitness, Death Sentence
Criminal Law Code of Criminal Procedure S. 429 Constitution of India Art. 134(1)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Grant of Certificate of Fitness Death Sentence

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babu and 3 others

Appellants

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From High Court Judgment and Order Dated August 21, 1963, Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 2271 and 2272 of 1962

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution in granting a certificate of fitness for appeal in a criminal case involving only factual disputes.
  2. 2 How free a third judge is to reach his own conclusions when Division Bench judges differ under s. 429 CrPC.
  3. 3 Whether the death sentence should be substituted by imprisonment for life because of difference of opinion among appellate judges.

Ratio Decidendi

The certificate of fitness granted under Art. 134(1)(c) was improper as the High Court did not identify a substantial question of law or principle, but rather differences in factual appreciation; s. 429 CrPC allows the third judge complete freedom in resolving such differences. The confirmed convictions and sentences were justified upon proper appraisal of evidence and do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Convictions and sentences (including death sentences) confirmed.
  • Special leave not granted.