Sudheer Singh @
Sudheer Vs. State of A.P. [2008] INSC 1820 (22 October 2008)
Judgment
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
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 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 the said charge. The 3rd 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 and a fine
of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. The 4th 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.
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 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.
Back
