Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 471 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Rathnaiah
RESPONDENT:
State of Karnataka
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2587 of 2007)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing
the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant faced trial for
alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376 ,
324 read with Section 34 and 342 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ’IPC’). While the appellant
was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, one year and six
months respectively for the three offences, other accused
persons were sentenced to undergo one year and six months
for each of the offence i.e. Section 324 read with Section 34
and Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. They preferred appeal before the High Court which was
numbered as Criminal Appeal no.553 of 2001. By the
impugned order the conviction and sentence so far as the
present appellant is concerned was confirmed while the
sentences were reduced so far as the accused persons are
concerned, but the fine amount was enhanced.
4. The High Court by a practically non-reasoned order
dismissed the appeal. The only conclusion fathomable from
the impugned judgment is as follows:
"3. In fact the prosecution and the trial
Court both have overlooked the fact that A1
had committed the acts of rape on two
occasions which are distinct offences. A1
should have been prosecuted separately for
both the incidents of rape by filing separate
charge sheet. In respect of second incident of
rape, the prosecution has adduced evidence to
prove the guilt. Accordingly, the trial Court
rightly convicted the accused U/s. 376 IPC."
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
High Court while dealing with the appeal has not even
analysed the evidence and has also not recorded any findings
on various submission on behalf of the appellants.
6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
submitted that though the judgment of the High Court does
not indicate the reasons, but the evidence on record justifies
the ultimate conclusion that the appeal was to be dismissed.
7. The manner in which the appeal has been dealt with is
not a correct way to deal with the appeal. No attempt appears
to have been done by the High Court to appreciate the rival
stand and to analyse the evidence in its proper perspective.
8. Above being the position, we set aside the impugned
order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh
disposal in accordance with law.
9. Appeal is allowed.