Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DEEPAK RAJAK versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided
14 June 2007
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2007] 7 S.C.R. 1022 · 2007 INSC 697
Also cited as
  • (2007) 15 SCC 305 (6 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Appellant faced trial alongwith 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').

p. 1023, margin D

2

The factual details need not detain us as undisputedly the coaccused have been acquitted by this Court in Mousam Singha Roy and Ors. v. State of WB. [2003] 12 SCC 377]. The effect of such acquittal vis-a-vis similarly situated co-accused has been considered by this Court in several cases.

p. 1023, margin E

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.

p. 1023, margin F

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 & Ors. 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 620; Jayantibhai Bhenk.ar v. State of Gujarat, [2002] SCC 165; Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, [2002] 9 SCC 147; Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. 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 & Anr. v. State of Punjab, [2003] 12 SCC 241; Vijrapu Sambayya Naidu v. State of A.P. (2004] IO SCC 152; Mohinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., [2004] 12 sec 311; Uma Shankar Gopalika State of Bihar, [2005] IO sec 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.

pp. 1023–1024, margin F

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.

p. 1024, margin B

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.

p. 1024, margin C

7

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

p. 1024, margin D