Sudheer Singh @ Sudheer vs State Of A.P

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High

Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing the appeal filed by the

present appellant-A1 and A-2 and A-3 before the High Court. Out of the five persons,

who faced trial, appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 394 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). Each was sentenced to undergo rigorous

..2/-

.2.

imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default

stipulation. A-2 was further charged for an offence punishable under Section 395 read

with Section 397 IPC. The learned trial judge found him not guilty and acquitted him of

the said charge. The 3rd charge against all the accused persons was under Section 302

read with Section 34 IPC. The learned trial judge found A-1 to A-3 guilty under the

aforesaid charge and convicted each one of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life

and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. The 4th charge against A-1 to A-5 was

under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and the learned trial judge convicted each of

the aforesaid accused persons and sentenced each one of them to three years rigorous

imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

3. According to the prosecution, on 10.7.1992 at about 9.30 p.m. at Muslimgunj

bridge all the accused persons caused the death of one Govindlal (hereinafter referred to

as 'the deceased'). It was further alleged that they caused injuries to P.W.1. The

accused, allegedly, had stolen Rs.1,50,000/- and the scooter belonging to P.W.-1 bearing

R.T.O. Registration No. AP-12-1090.

..3/-

.3.

4. It is not necessary to deal with the factual position in detail, in view of the fact

that the order of the High Court is absolutely sketchy and practically unreasoned. Out

of the 12 pages of the judgment appearing in the paper book, upto para 10, the factual position has been elaborated. Thereafter, by an abrupt conclusion the High Court

upheld the judgment of the trial court and maintained the conviction. The manner in

which the appeal was disposed of, leaves much to be desired. The High Court even did

not make an attempt to analyse the evidence of the witnesses. What would have

happened had that exercise being undertaken cannot be decided in these proceedings.

The impugned judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. The matter is

remitted to the High Court to deal with the appeal so far as it relates to A-1 is concerned.

5. It is to be noted that the appeal filed by A-2 and A-3 was allowed and the

conviction and the sentence imposed were set aside. Since the prosecution has not

challenged the order of the High Court, so far it relates to directing the acquittal of A-2

and A-3 is concerned, the same remains unaltered. We have interfered in the matter

because the judgment of the High Court is practically unreasoned and the evidence has

not been

..4/-

.4.

analysed in detail. As a matter of fact, A-1 was also acquitted of the charge of Section

302 read with 34 IPC and the conviction was restricted to Section 394 IPC. As the

prosecution has not questioned the acquittal of the appellant, so far as it relates to

Section 302 read with 34 IPC is concerned, that part of the judgment shall remain

unaltered.

6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

......................J. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT]

......................J. [C.K. THAKKER]

......................J. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA]

NEW DELHI October 22,2008.