Gurram Chakravarthy vs State Of A.P

Gurram Chakravarthy .....Appellant

Versus

State of A.P. .... Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding conviction of the appellant for

the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(in short the `IPC'). The accused appellant faced trial for the alleged

commission of the aforesaid offence. The learned Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam convicted the appellant as aforenoted and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. By judgment dated 22.12.1998 the appeal filed

before the High Court was dismissed. The matter was carried before this

Court in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2000 which was disposed of by order

dated 31st July, 2000. This court found that the manner of disposal of the

appeal left much to be desired. It was pointed out by this court that four

defence witnesses were examined to rebut the presumption created under

Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence

Act'). This Court noted that there was no discussion of the various aspects

including the acceptability of the evidence of the DWs. That being so, the

matter was remitted to the High Court. It was clearly stated that the High

Court cannot side line the defence version and the same has to be

considered to see whether the presumption has been rebutted by the

appellant. By the impugned judgment the High Court has again upheld the

conviction and the sentence imposed. Strangely, the High Court has not

discussed the evidence in detail. It has merely referred to the evidence of

the defence witnesses and come to the conclusion that the appeal was

without merit. Certainly it was not in the manner of disposal of the appeal

which this court had desired. We are conscious that the matter is pending

since long and it would not be in the interest of the party if the matter is

remitted to the High Court. But at the same time the inappropriate way of

2 disposing the appeal leading to the impugned judgment cannot be lost sight

of and the same cannot be maintained.

2. Above being the position, we set aside the impugned judgment of the

High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. As the matter

is pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as

early as practicable, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of

the order.

........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, November 28, 2008

3