State Of Karnataka vs Ningappa @ Bhyrappa @ Ningegowda & Anr

State of Karnataka ..Appellant

Versus

Ningappa @ Bhyrappa @ Ningegowda & Anr. ..Respondents

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 allowing the appeal filed by the respondents so

far as their conviction for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') is concerned. Learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Sessions Case No.8/1996 convicted

respondent no.1 in terms of Section 304 Part I IPC. So far as respondent

no.2 is concerned, he was convicted in terms of Section 304 Part II. The

conviction of respondent nos.1 & 2 for offences punishable under Section

324 read with Section 34 IPC was confirmed.

3. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects in detail in view of

the order proposed to be passed.

4. Nine persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable

under Sections 143, 148, 149, 324, 114 read with Section 302 IPC. The

prosecution related to an incident on 29.9.1995. The respondents were

charged for alleged intentional commission of murder of one Venkatesha

Gowda (hereinafter referred to as `deceased'). In order to substantiate the

offence six witnesses were examined. The trial Court after analyzing the

evidence on record, inter alia, concluded as follows:

"The discussion supra clearly goes to show that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that A1 had been guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 Part-I IPC, A3 had committed offence punishable

2 under Section 304 Part II IPC. A1, A2 and A4 had committed offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. A5 to A9 have not committed any offence, as how alleged. Hence, I hold that A5 to A9 are entitled for acquittal. But, the other accused will have to be convicted for the said offences."

5. The present respondents filed an appeal before the Karnataka High

Court which was disposed of by the impugned judgment. We were shocked

to find that the learned Single Judge by a cryptic and practically non-

reasoned order has set aside the conviction of the respondents in respect of

their conviction in terms of Section 304 Part-I and 304 Part-II respectively.

There is practically no analysis of the evidence, more particularly of the

eye-witness PWs. 1 to 3 and 9 and 10. They also claimed to have suffered

injuries in the incident.

6. Additionally, dying declaration purported to have been made by the

deceased has also not been discussed.

7. The Sessions Judge's order shows that he had analysed the evidence

in great detail. The High Court did not make an effort to indicate as to how

the conclusions were erroneous and/or contrary to evidence on record. The

manner in which the appeal has been disposed of leaves much to be desired.

3 Such casual disposal of appeal setting aside the conviction, is neither proper

nor desirable.

8. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the

matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits. Needless to

say, the High Court shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law by a

reasoned order.

9. The appeal is allowed.

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

........................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, February 11, 2009

4