Bangarayya Vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors.  INSC 833 (8 October 2010)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1964 OF 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5386 of 2010) Ram Ratan ....Appellant
Versus State of Rajasthan ....Respondent
AFTAB ALAM, J.
counsel for the parties.
appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated August 27, 2009 passed
by a learned single judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the appellant's appeal
(Criminal Appeal No.1139 of 2006) from the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed against him by the trial court.
Special Court, Kota, specified under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by its judgment and order dated
October 16, 2006 in Sessions Case no.89 of 2006, convicted the appellant under
sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Penal Code and sentenced 2 him to rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.500 (in default 1 month's simple
imprisonment) under section 307, imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs.500
(in default 1 month's simple imprisonment) under section 326 and imprisonment
for one year under section 324 of the Penal Code. All the sentences were to run
High Court disposed of the appeal by a brief order that runs into no more than
four pages and a few lines in the paper book. On the first half page the High
Court stated the sections under which the appellant was convicted and the
sentences awarded to him for the respective offences. Next, it very briefly
stated about the prosecution case and the charge sheet submitted by the police.
It then, restated the sections under which the appellant was convicted and the
respective sentences given to him under those sections by the trial court. In
the next paragraph, it vaguely stated the submissions made by the counsel for
the appellant and in the two lines thereafter, the submissions made by the
public prosecutor. Then comes the consideration of the matter by the court,
which is as under all of six lines:
hearing the arguments of Learned Advocates of both the sides and perusing the
facts and circumstances of this case, while confirming the order of conviction
of the appellant and while keeping in the view the facts that this is his first
offence and that he is not habitual offender, I think it justified to order 6
years' rigorous imprisonment in place of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment while
maintaining rest of the judgment as it was."
the above, the judgment concludes with the direction to the jail officials that
the appellant should be given the benefit of section 432 of the Code keeping in
view his conduct in the jail.
feel sorry in reminding the High Court that an appeal under section 374 of the
Criminal Procedure Code is both on facts and law, and the High Court hearing
the appeal is the last court of facts. To put it mildly, the High Court was
rather cavalier in disposing of the appellant's appeal in the manner as seen
may note here that even though no appeal against the High Court judgment is
preferred by the State, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, counsel appearing for the State of
Rajasthan was equally critical of the way the High Court did not take into
account the material evidences against the appellant.
the aforesaid reasons, we are constrained to interfere in the matter. The order
of the High Court is set aside and the appellant's appeal before the High Court
(single judge Criminal Appeal no.1139 of 2006) is restored to its file for a
fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law.
is hoped and expected that the High Court will finally hear and dispose of the
appeal without any undue delay and preferably by the end of this year. In case
for any reason, the appeal is not disposed of by the end of the year, it will
be open to the appellant to make a prayer for bail before the High Court.
the result the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.