Latest Judgments

Sumathi v. Govindaswamy and Anr.

November 26, 2021
R.P. (Crl.) D 32189/2016 in Crl.A. No. 1584-1585/2014

Criminal Law — Penal Code, 1860 — S. 300 — Soumya murder case — Per Katju, J. judgment needs to be reviewed in an open court hearing — Held, notice requesting appearance of Katju, J. sent to participate in the proceedings on 11-11-2016 as to whether the judgment and order dt. 15-9-2016 passed by this Bench in Cri. Appeal No. 1584-1585 of 2014 suffers from any fundamental flaw so as to require exercise of the review jurisdiction (Paras 4 and 5)

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

(Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.)


 


Sumathi __________________________________________ Petitioner


 


v.


 


Govindaswamy and Anr. __________________________ Respondent(s)


 


R.P. (Crl.) D 32189/2016 in Crl.A. No. 1584-1585/2014, decided on October 17, 2016


 


With


 


R.P. (Crl) No. 655-656/2016 in Crl.A. No. 1584-1585/2014


 


[With Appln.(s) for Exemption from Filing Official English Translation and Oral Hearing]


 


The Order of the court was delivered by


Order


 


1. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for the State of Kerala in Review Petition (Criminal) No. 655-656 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 1584-1585 of 2014 and Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner in Review Petition (Criminal) No. D. NO. 32189 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 1584-1585 of 2014.


 


2. Though arguments have been elaborate and stands concluded we do not consider it appropriate to express any opinion on the contentions advanced at this stage. This is so because we are of the view that a connected issue which has arisen needs to be resolved in the first instance.


 


3. A Former Judge of this Court Justice Markandey Katju in a blog published on Facebook has expressed an opinion that the judgment and order dated 15th September, 2016 passed by this Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 1584-1585 of 2014 needs to be reviewed in an open Court hearing. Such a view coming from a retired Judge of this Court needs to be treated with greatest of respect and consideration. We, therefore, reproduce herein below the blog published by Justice Katju in Facebook and convert the same into a suo motu review petition.


 


“Markandey Katju


 


September 16 at 11:41 a.m.


 


The Malayalam T.V. channel Asianet just now took my interview on the Soumya murder case.


 


I said that the Supreme Court has grievously erred in law by not holding Govindachamy guilty of murder. The Court held that since it has not been proved that the accused had intention to kill he cannot be held guilty of murder. What the Court has overlooked is that section 300 IPC, which defines murder, has 4 parts, and only the first part requires intention to kill. If any of the other 3 parts are established, it will be murder even if there was no intention to kill. It is regrettable that the Court has not read section 300 carefully. The judgment needs to be reviewed in an open court hearing.”


 


4. Office to register a suo motu review petition.


 


5. We issue notice to Justice Markandey Katju, former judge of this Court and request him to appear in Court in person and participate in the proceedings on 11th November, 2016 at 2.00 p.m. as to whether the judgment and order dated 15th September, 2016 passed by this Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 1584-1585 of 2014 suffers from any fundamental flaw so as to require exercise of the review jurisdiction.


 


6. We request the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to make this Bench available on 11th November, 2016 at 2.00 p.m.


 


7. Office to act accordingly.


 


———


 


 

You may also like