Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7461 of 2007)
State of Karnataka ..Appellant
Versus
Ningappa @ Bhyrappa @ Ningegowda
& Anr. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents so
far as their conviction for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) is concerned. Learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Sessions Case No.8/1996 convicted
respondent no.1 in terms of Section 304 Part I IPC. So far as respondent
no.2 is concerned, he was convicted in terms of Section 304 Part II. The
conviction of respondent nos.1 & 2 for offences punishable under Section
324 read with Section 34 IPC was confirmed.
3. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects in detail in view of
the order proposed to be passed.
4. Nine persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable
under Sections 143, 148, 149, 324, 114 read with Section 302 IPC. The
prosecution related to an incident on 29.9.1995. The respondents were
charged for alleged intentional commission of murder of one Venkatesha
Gowda (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). In order to substantiate the
offence six witnesses were examined. The trial Court after analyzing the
evidence on record, inter alia, concluded as follows:
“The discussion supra clearly goes to show that
the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that
A1 had been guilty of offence punishable under Section
302 Part-I IPC, A3 had committed offence punishable
2
under Section 304 Part II IPC. A1, A2 and A4 had
committed offence punishable under Section 324 read
with 34 IPC. A5 to A9 have not committed any offence,
as how alleged. Hence, I hold that A5 to A9 are entitled
for acquittal. But, the other accused will have to be
convicted for the said offences.”
5. The present respondents filed an appeal before the Karnataka High
Court which was disposed of by the impugned judgment. We were shocked
to find that the learned Single Judge by a cryptic and practically non-
reasoned order has set aside the conviction of the respondents in respect of
their conviction in terms of Section 304 Part-I and 304 Part-II respectively.
There is practically no analysis of the evidence, more particularly of the
eye-witness PWs. 1 to 3 and 9 and 10. They also claimed to have suffered
injuries in the incident.
6. Additionally, dying declaration purported to have been made by the
deceased has also not been discussed.
7. The Sessions Judge’s order shows that he had analysed the evidence
in great detail. The High Court did not make an effort to indicate as to how
the conclusions were erroneous and/or contrary to evidence on record. The
manner in which the appeal has been disposed of leaves much to be desired.
3
Such casual disposal of appeal setting aside the conviction, is neither proper
nor desirable.
8. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the
matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits. Needless to
say, the High Court shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law by a
reasoned order.
9. The appeal is allowed.
………………………………….J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
………………………………….J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi,
February 11, 2009
4