Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Shivanagoud Chanegoud Patil & Ors vs State Of Karnataka

Supreme Court14 January 2010A.K. Patnaik · Dalveer Bhandari

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2010(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2160/2009)

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