Deepak Rajak v. State Of West Bengal ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was tried along with several co-accused for offences under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. While the trial court convicted all accused and the High Court affirmed the conviction, the Supreme Court later acquitted the co-accused in “Mousam Singha Roy v. State of West Bengal” (2003) 12 SCC 377. The present appeal concerns whether the lone remaining convicted appellant, who initially did not surrender but later did so and has already undergone more than two years of custody, should receive the same benefit of acquittal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Relied on multiple Supreme Court decisions to contend that the benefit of the co-accused’s acquittal should automatically extend to him because the charges, evidence and factual matrix are identical.

State's Arguments

Asserted that the appellant’s initial non-surrender distinguishes his case from that of the acquitted co-accused, rendering the cited authorities inapplicable.

Cited a series of decisions to support the proposition that absence of surrender can justify withholding parity of treatment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mousam Singha Roy v. State of W.B. (2003) 12 SCC 377	Acquittal of co-accused on identical facts	Formed the primary basis for extending similar relief to the appellant
Raja Ram v. State of M.P. (1994) 2 SCC 568	Effect of non-surrender after conviction	Relied upon by the State; distinguished by the Court after noting appellant’s eventual surrender
Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp (4) SCC 558	Parity versus conduct of accused post-conviction	Relied upon by the State; Court found parity justified once surrender occurred
Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 69	Non-surrender as a ground to deny relief	Same as above
Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 8 SCC 165	Considerations in extending benefit of acquittal	Same as above
Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 9 SCC 147	Non-surrender implications	Same as above
Gurucharan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 2 SCC 698	Conditions for granting similar relief	Same as above
Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 708	Parity doctrine limits	Same as above
Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2003) 4 SCC 128	Non-surrender consequences	Same as above
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2003) 11 SCC 241	Effect of surrender on equity	Same as above
Hem Raj v. State of Punjab (2003) 12 SCC 241	Extension of acquittal benefit	Same as above
Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu v. State of A.P. (2004) 10 SCC 152	Parity after surrender	Same as above
Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 12 SCC 311	Standards for extending relief	Same as above
Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar (2005) 10 SCC 336	Non-surrender repercussions	Same as above
Munna Kumar v. State of Bihar (2005) 12 SCC 209	Effect of custody undergone	Same as above

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Mousam Singha Roy v. State of W.B. (2003) 12 SCC 377

Acquittal of co-accused on identical facts

Formed the primary basis for extending similar relief to the appellant

Raja Ram v. State of M.P. (1994) 2 SCC 568

Effect of non-surrender after conviction

Relied upon by the State; distinguished by the Court after noting appellant’s eventual surrender

Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp (4) SCC 558

Parity versus conduct of accused post-conviction

Relied upon by the State; Court found parity justified once surrender occurred

Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 69

Non-surrender as a ground to deny relief

Same as above

Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 8 SCC 165

Considerations in extending benefit of acquittal

Same as above

Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 9 SCC 147

Non-surrender implications

Same as above

Gurucharan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 2 SCC 698

Conditions for granting similar relief

Same as above

Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 708

Parity doctrine limits

Same as above

Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2003) 4 SCC 128

Non-surrender consequences

Same as above

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2003) 11 SCC 241

Effect of surrender on equity

Same as above

Hem Raj v. State of Punjab (2003) 12 SCC 241

Extension of acquittal benefit

Same as above

Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu v. State of A.P. (2004) 10 SCC 152

Parity after surrender

Same as above

Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 12 SCC 311

Standards for extending relief

Same as above

Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar (2005) 10 SCC 336

Non-surrender repercussions

Same as above

Munna Kumar v. State of Bihar (2005) 12 SCC 209

Effect of custody undergone

Same as above

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that it had already acquitted the co-accused on the same evidence and accusations. Jurisprudence recognises that similarly situated convicts are ordinarily entitled to identical relief unless a distinguishing factor justifies a different outcome. The Court acknowledged that non-surrender can constitute such a distinguishing factor, citing earlier authorities relied on by the State. However, it emphasised that the appellant had subsequently surrendered and undergone more than two years of incarceration.

Given the surrender and the identical factual matrix, the Court found no sustainable ground to treat the appellant differently from the acquitted co-accused. It therefore applied the principle of parity, holding that the benefit of the earlier acquittal should extend to the appellant.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE.

The immediate effect is the appellant’s release from criminal liability. The ruling reiterates the Supreme Court’s position that parity must be maintained among similarly situated accused, and that initial non-surrender loses significance once the accused submits to custody. No new legal precedent was expressly created, but the decision reinforces existing principles on extending the benefit of co-accused acquittals.

Deepak Rajak v. State Of West Bengal .

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— The appellant faced trial along with several others for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 201 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”).

2. The factual details need not detain us as undisputedly the co-accused have been acquitted by this Court in Mousam Singha Roy v. State of W.B (2003) 12 SCC 377 The effect of such acquittal vis-à-vis similarly situated co-accused has been considered by this Court in several cases.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on various decisions of this Court contending that the benefit of acquittal should be extended to the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the appellant did not surrender initially and therefore decisions relied upon may not have any relevance. He relied on the decisions in Raja Ram v. State of M.P (1994) 2 SCC 568; Kashmira Singh v. State Of Punjab . 1995 Supp (4) SCC 558; Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P (1999) 7 SCC 69; Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State Of Gujarat . (2002) 8 SCC 165; Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 9 SCC 147; Gurucharan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 2 SCC 698; Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State Of Maharashtra . (2003) 2 SCC 708; Suresh Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar . (2003) 4 SCC 128; Pawan Kumar v. State Of Haryana . (2003) 11 SCC 241; Hem Raj v. State of Punjab (2003) 12 SCC 241; Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu v. State of A.P (2004) 10 SCC 152; Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 12 SCC 311; Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar (2005) 10 SCC 336 and Munna Kumar v. State Of Bihar . (2005) 12 SCC 209. The appellant subsequently surrendered and has suffered custody for more than two years.

5. The position in law as to what happens in case of acquittal of similarly placed co-accused on the same set of facts and on similar accusations has been considered by this Court in several cases.

6. A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended.

7. The appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is set aside.

Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of 2001, decided on June 14, 2007

Deepak Rajak v. State Of West Bengal .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

State's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Deepak Rajak v. State Of West Bengal .

Comments