Sohan Singh Pritam Singh Vs. State

.....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 sohan singh against his conviction for an offence under section 302, penal code.2. the facts of the case are that on 31-5-1948 between the hours of 6 and 7 p.m. there was a dispute at the well of mazhabis between shangara singh on the one hand and geja singh on the other. shangara singh and sohan singh seem to be relatives and there is some proof that shangara singh was living with sohan singh. the dispute ended in grappling at the well but the two were separated. shangara singh then went home and it is stated that sohan singh and shangara singh armed themselves with 'dangs' and came to the spot where geja singh had also come after having been home and left his bucket of water there. there was an exchange of abuse and then sohan singh and shangara singh started beating geja singh. one of the blows fell on geja singh's head and he fell down, was taken to the hospital at algaon and died there the following day at 8 p.m.3. the first information report was lodged by rur singh, a brother of geja singh, at 2 p.m. on 1-6-1948 and naturally at that time it was a report under section 307, penal code.4. shangara singh absconded but was arrested after a short time and was tried by the learned sessions judge, amritsar, but we are told that he was acquitted although the judgment is not before us. sohan singh had also absconded and after some period of time he was arrested in bikaner state. he was tried by another sessions judge of amritsar and has been convicted under section 302, penal code and given transportation for life.5. the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution consists of rur singh, p. w. 2, meja singh p. w. 4 and prito p. w. 5, the wife of geja singh deceased. their evidence which has been accepted by the learned judge of the court below shows that after the grappling at the well, geja singh went home, left his bucket of water there and came back to the shop of dalip singh mehra. soon after sohan singh and.....