HUCHAPPA @ HUCHARAYAPPA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

                          [2008) 5 S.C.R. 988
                                                                      ,-


A          HUCHAPPA @ HUCHARAYAPPA AND ORS.
                               v.
                    STATE OF KARNATAKA
               (Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2008)
                           APRIL 1, 2008
B
        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

          Penal Code, 1860 - s. 326 - Conviction under -
    Appeal by accused- Dismissal of, by High Court - Challenge
c   to - Held: Approach of High Court was casual - It did not apply
    its mind to various contentions raised on behalf of accused-
    appellant - Hence, matter remitted to High Court - Practice
    and Procedure - Criminal appeal - Manner of disposal.
       According to the prosecution, the 14 accused
D persons formed themselves into members of an unlawful
  assembly and assaulted a person with deadly weapons
  causing grievous injuries to him and his consequent
  death. The Trial Court acquitted 11 accused but convicted
  the other three accused i.e. Appellants under s.326 IPC.
E The conviction of Appellants was upheld by the High
  Court. Hence the present appeal.
         Remitting the matter to High Court for fresh disposal,
    the Court

F      HELD: The High Court's judgment is a bundle of
  confusion. Since the High Court has not applied its mind
  to various contentions raised on behalf of the appellant
                                                                       ·-
  and has in a casual manner disposed of the appeal, the
  matter is remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in
G
  accordance  with law. [Paras 7, 9) [990-F, G; 991-B, CJ
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
  Appeal No. 577 of 2008.
         From the Judgment dated 27.7.2006 of the High Court of
H                                988
       HUCHAPPA@ HUCHARAYAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE                    989
           OF KARNATAKA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
 -,
       Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. A. No. 346/2001 (SJ)                A
           N.D.B. Raju, Bharathi Raju and N. Ganpathy for the
       Appellants.
            Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    B

            DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
             2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
       learned single judge of the High Court upholding the judgment
       of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga in SC No.37 of        c
       1995 convicting the three appellants for offence punishable
       under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
       'IPC') and sentence each one of them to undergo rigorous
       imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each
       with default stipulation. There were originally 14 accused         D
       persons. The trial court found the present appellants.guilty and
       others were found not to be guilty under Section 235(1) of the
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.').
       Originally all the accused persons were charged for having
       committed offence under Sections 143,144, 147, 148, 109, 504,      E
       324, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. In view of death
       of Mahadevappa (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') on
       28.11.1994, Section 302 IPC was added.
             3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial was as
       follows:                                                           F
-,
             The accused persons 1 to 14 forming themselves into
       members of unlawful assembly, with deadly weapons assaulted
       CW-1 and caused fracture of his left leg. CW-1 consequent to
       the injuries and septicemia died after five days while under G
       treatment. The F.l.R. is lodged by the deceased. The contents
       of the F.l.R. implicated all the accused persons. PWs. 2 and 5
 ...   are the eye witnesses to the incident. They also implicate A 1 to
       A-14 as assailants who caused grievous injuries on CW-1,
       ultimately resulting in his death.
                                                                         H
    990        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A        4. As noted above, after the death of the deceased, another
  complaint was filed and the case was registered as one in
  relation to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The
  trial court as noted above found accused 4 to 14 to be not guilty.
  An appeal was preferred by the appellants which, as noted
B above was dismissed. The High Court disposed of the appeal
  observing as follows:
          "The trial court has grossly erred in acquitting A4 to A 14.
          Since Section 149 is invoked and acquitted accused
          would be equally and vicariously liable for the acts of A 1
c         to A3 as they have shared common object and they had
          also participated in the assault. The State has not filed an
          appeal against illegal acquittal.
          The trial court convicted A 1 to A3 for committing offence
          under Section 326 l.P.C. The injury was caused on the
D
          non-vital part, no intention to cause the injury which is likely
          to cause death and no knowledge of causing death could
          be inferred from the overt acts. Therefore conviction u/s
          326 IPC is sound and proper. Looking into the
          consequence and ghastly act, the sentence imposed is
E         also sound and proper and do not call for interference.
          The appeal is dismissed."
         5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
    High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable being
F   unreasoned.
         6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the
    judgment.
        7. To say the least the High Court's judgment is a bundle
G of confusion. The High Court held that the trial court has erred in
  acquitting A4 to A 14, sihce Section 149 was invoked and
  acquitted accused persons should be equally and vicariously
  liable as they shared common object of A 1 to A3 and also
  participated in the assault.
H         8. The High Court noted that the State has not filed an
 HUCHAPPA@ HUCHARAYAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE                      991
     OF KARNATAKA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

appeal against the "illegal acquittal". The High Court upheld the     A
conviction holding that injury was caused on the non-vital part
which was likely to cause the injury which is likely to cause death
and no knowledge of causing death could be inferred from the
overt acts. Therefore the conviction was maintained and the
appeal was dismissed.                                                 B
      9. Since the High Court has not applied its mind to various
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has in a casual
manner disposed of the appeal, we have no hesitation in setting
aside the impugned Judgment. We remit the matter to the High
Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Since the C
Criminal Appeal is to the year 2001, we request the High Court
to dispose of the appeal as early as practicable preferably by
the end of October, 2008.
      10. It is stated that an application for suspension of the
                                                                      0
sentence of the accused persons and grant of bail is shall be
moved in the High Court. If the same is filed, it shall be dealt
with in accordance with law.
B.B.B.                            Matter remitted to High Court.