State of Maharashtra Vs. Eknath Yeshwant Pagar and anr. - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1975|
|Judge|| A. Varadarajan and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1981SC1571; 1981CriLJ1284a; (1981)2SCC299|
|Appellant||State of Maharashtra|
|Respondent||Eknath Yeshwant Pagar and anr.|
.....can square with the mandate of art. 21. when the high court trying a case sentences a man to death a higher court must examine the merits to satisfy that human life shall not be haltered without an appellate review. a single right of appeal is more or less a universal requirement of the guarantee of life and liberty rooted in the conception that men are fallible, that judges are men and that making assurance doubly sure before irrevocable deprivation of life or liberty comes to pass, full-scale re-examination of the facts and the law is made an integral part of fundamental! fairness or procedure. [1105c, e] the life of the law is not perfection of theory but realisation of justice in the concrete situation of a given system. it is common knowledge that a jail appeal or an appeal.....orders. murtaza fazal ali, j.1. it is stated by the counsel for the respondents that respondent no. 1 is dead. according to the prosecution, respondent no. 1 is the main accused and the second respondent was merely an abettor. both were acquitted by the high court. hence this appeal to this court. since the appeal abates against the first respondent on account of his death and the second respondent has already been acquitted, appeal against the second respondent becomes infructuous. the appeal is accordingly disposed of.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. It is stated by the counsel for the respondents that respondent No. 1 is dead. According to the prosecution, respondent No. 1 is the main accused and the second respondent was merely an abettor. Both were acquitted by the High Court. Hence this appeal to this Court. Since the appeal abates against the first respondent on account of his death and the second respondent has already been acquitted, appeal against the second respondent becomes infructuous. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.