Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2002
Sudheer Singh @ Sudheer ..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of A.P. ..... Respondent
J U D G M E N T
DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing the appeal filed by the
present appellant-A1 and A-2 and A-3 before the High Court. Out of the five persons,
who faced trial, appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 394 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). Each was sentenced to undergo rigorous
..2/-
.2.
imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default
stipulation. A-2 was further charged for an offence punishable under Section 395 read
with Section 397 IPC. The learned trial judge found him not guilty and acquitted him of
rd
the said charge. The 3 charge against all the accused persons was under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC. The learned trial judge found A-1 to A-3 guilty under the
aforesaid charge and convicted each one of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life
th
and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. The 4 charge against A-1 to A-5 was
under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and the learned trial judge convicted each of
the aforesaid accused persons and sentenced each one of them to three years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.
3. According to the prosecution, on 10.7.1992 at about 9.30 p.m. at Muslimgunj
bridge all the accused persons caused the death of one Govindlal (hereinafter referred to
as 'the deceased'). It was further alleged that they caused injuries to P.W.1. The
accused, allegedly, had stolen Rs.1,50,000/- and the scooter belonging to P.W.-1 bearing
R.T.O. Registration No. AP-12-1090.
..3/-
.3.
4. It is not necessary to deal with the factual position in detail, in view of the fact
that the order of the High Court is absolutely sketchy and practically unreasoned. Out
of the 12 pages of the judgment appearing in the paper book, upto para 10, the factual
position has been elaborated. Thereafter, by an abrupt conclusion the High Court
upheld the judgment of the trial court and maintained the conviction. The manner in
which the appeal was disposed of, leaves much to be desired. The High Court even did
not make an attempt to analyse the evidence of the witnesses. What would have
happened had that exercise being undertaken cannot be decided in these proceedings.
The impugned judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. The matter is
remitted to the High Court to deal with the appeal so far as it relates to A-1 is concerned.
5. It is to be noted that the appeal filed by A-2 and A-3 was allowed and the
conviction and the sentence imposed were set aside. Since the prosecution has not
challenged the order of the High Court, so far it relates to directing the acquittal of A-2
and A-3 is concerned, the same remains unaltered. We have interfered in the matter
because the judgment of the High Court is practically unreasoned and the evidence has
not been
..4/-
.4.
analysed in detail. As a matter of fact, A-1 was also acquitted of the charge of Section
302 read with 34 IPC and the conviction was restricted to Section 394 IPC. As the
prosecution has not questioned the acquittal of the appellant, so far as it relates to
Section 302 read with 34 IPC is concerned, that part of the judgment shall remain
unaltered.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
......................J.
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT]
......................J.
[C.K. THAKKER]
......................J.
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA]
NEW DELHI
October 22,2008.