Dalip Singh and anr. Vs. the State

.....original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. kapur, j.1. this is an appeal brought by dalip singh against his conviction under section 302 and sentence of transportation for life and by sowarn singh against his conviction under section 323, penal code and a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment. along with these two, who are brothers, their paternal uncle karam singh was fried for murder but has been acquitted.2. the occurrence is the result of very unfortunate circumstances. on 20-5-1952, at about 8 p. m. in the compound of the local primary school a meeting was held at the instance of the tahsildar who was present for the purpose of electing members of the consolidation advisory committee. lal singh deceased was elected but sowarn singh took objection to his election stating that he was a dishonest man. thereupon saudagar singh son of lal singh and sowarn singh began to grapple with each other but they were separated by the tahsildar who intervened. this, however, did not cool down their tempers and a little later they again began to grapple with each other. lal singh, according to the story of the prosecution, came forward in order to rescue his son. thereupon dalip singh gave a blow on his head and lal singh fell down. sowarn singh took the stick and gave a blow to saudagar singh which caused minor injuries. sowarn singh and karam singh are then alleged tohave shouted that lal singh should not be spared to be able to make a statement, and dalip singh thereupon gave another blow on the arm of lal singh which fractured it. lal singh died soon after and three persons were prosecuted for murder--dalip singh and his brother sowarn singh who are the appellants arid karam singh their uncle who has been acquitted.3. mr. rai for the appellants has taken us through the evidence of the important witnesses, i.e., the tahsildar p. w. 2, saudagar singh p. w. 3 and kishan singh p. w. 18. it is clear from this that there was' a great deal of ill-will between the parties. proceedings under section 107 read with.....