Shivanagoud Chanegoud Patil & Ors vs State Of Karnataka
- SCC(2010) 13 SCC 537
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In a criminal appeal which is the first appeal before the High Court, the High Court is under a bounden duty to consider and examine the entire evidence and other documents on record in detail, and a decision that upholds or sets aside convictions without discussing the evidence and examining the documents on record is a failure to discharge this fundamental duty and must be set aside with remand for fresh consideration of the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
SHIVANAGOUD CHANEGOUD PATIL AND ORS. Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.1614 of 2004.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in a double murder case, convicted the accused A-3, A-5, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-21 and A-22 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment and they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
-2-
The High Court by the impugned judgment without discussing the evidence and examining the documents on record, upheld the conviction of A-5, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-21 and A-22 and set aside the conviction of A-3. We hardly need to remind the High Court that it was the first appeal before the High Court and the High Court was under the boundened duty to consider the entire evidence and other documents on record in detail.
In the circumstances, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the appeal to the High Court for deciding the same afresh after closely examining the entire evidence and other documents on record.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that against the acquittal of A-3, the State has not preferred any appeal. Therefore, the remand is in respect of other accused excepting A-3.
With the aforementioned observation and direction this appeal is disposed of.
.....................J
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
.....................J
(A.K. PATNAIK)
New Delhi;
January 14, 2010.
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