Prasad @ Hari Prasad Acharya vs State Of Karnataka
- SCC(2009) 3 SCC 174
- Neutral2009 INSC 128
- AIRAIR 2009 SC 1911
- SCR[2009] 1 SCR 1089
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A judgment of a higher court reviewing a conviction must provide reasoned findings, with analysis of the evidence adduced before the trial court and reference to the infirmities or objections raised by the accused, rather than arriving at bare conclusions of guilt; the absence of such reasoning in an appellate judgment, however brief the reasons, renders that judgment unsustainable and constitutes a denial of justice by depriving the affected party of knowledge of why the decision has gone against him and rendering impossible the performance of further appellate or judicial review functions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Prasad @ Hari Prasad Acharya ...Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka ...Respondent
JUDGMENT
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 upholding the conviction of the appellant for
offence punishable under Sections 447, 376(2)(g) and 506 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). Various custodial
sentences were imposed on the appellant and one Sathish.
3. It is not necessary to refer to the factual aspects in detail in view of
the order proposed to be passed.
4. It was the prosecution case that on 30.4.2003 around midnight both
the accused persons went to the house of the victim, the prosecutrix (PW-1).
They called out her husband. He came out after lighting the kerosene lamp
and found the accused persons. The prosecutrix was compelled by the
accused persons to follow them to the jungle and she was threatened that if
she did not do so her hut would be set on fire. When she refused, they
forcibly took her about 100 ft. away from the hut and forcibly committed
rape on her and threatened not to disclose to anybody. Thereafter, they fled
away. PW-2 and PW-3 are the husband and the daughter of PW-1
respectively. After the incident PWs 1 and 2 went and informed one Santosh
Hegde (PW-7) who told them to give a police complaint. On 1.5.2003 at
about 9.00 p.m. First Information Report was lodged. The prosecutrix was
subjected to medical examination and the same indicated that she was
subjected to sexual intercourse around 12 hours prior to the time of
examination. The trial Court found that the evidence of the prosecutrix and
the husband is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused persons and
accordingly convicted them. In appeal, the High court by the impugned
judgment upheld the conviction.
2
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the High Court's judgment is practically non-reasoned. The evidence
has not been discussed and abrupt conclusions have been arrived at about
the guilt of the accused.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported
the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court.
7. A bare perusal of the High Court's impugned judgment shows that
the same is non-reasoned and no basis or reasons have been indicated by the
High Court and there is not even analysis of the evidence. Various
infirmities pointed out by the accused to throw doubt on the authenticity of
the prosecution evidence are not even referred to.
8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of
justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief,
in its order indicative of an application of its mind. The absence of reasons
has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
3
9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen
v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed: "The giving
of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander
Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was
observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice." "Reasons
are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute
subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the
decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence,
render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate
function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of
the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial
system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the
matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know
why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of
natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a
speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous
with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
4
10. We are dismayed at the casual manner in which the criminal appeal
has been disposed of. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned
judgment and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in
accordance with law. As the matter is pending since long we request the
High Court to explore the possibility of early disposal of Criminal Appeal
No.693 of 2005.
11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi, February 09, 2009
5
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free