Holding

The High Court's order is set aside for being unreasoned; the matter is remitted to the High Court for further consideration, while the acquittal under section 302/34 IPC remains as the prosecution did not challenge it.

Summary

The appellant Sudheer Singh was tried along with four others for robbery, murder and attempted murder. The trial court convicted him under IPC sections 394 and 302 read with 34, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction under section 394 but acquitted him of the murder charge under section 302/34, without providing any reasoning or analysis of the evidence. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the High Court’s order was sketchy, unreasoned and failed to examine the testimony, and therefore set aside that order. Since the prosecution did not challenge the acquittal on the murder charge, that part of the judgment was left untouched. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeal as it relates to the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court's order confirming conviction under section 394 IPC and acquitting under section 302 read with 34 IPC is valid despite being unreasoned and lacking analysis of evidence.
Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with the acquittal under section 302/34 IPC when the prosecution has not challenged it.
Whether the appeal should be remitted to the High Court for a fresh, reasoned consideration.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 34, s. 394, s. 395, s. 397

Subjects

Criminal lawConvictionAcquittalAppellate reviewReasoned orderIPC sections 302IPC sections 34IPC section 394High Court orderSupreme Court remand

Judgment

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 309

SUDHEER SINGH @ SUDHEER A
~ v.
STATE OF A.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2002)
OCTOBER 22, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

~ Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 and 394 - Prosecution
under - Conviction by trial court - High Court convicting the G
accused uls. 394 while acquitting him u/s. 302134 - On
appeal, held: Order of the High Court being sketchy,
unreasoned and without analysis of evidence, matter remitted
to High Court - Since Order of acquittal not challenged by
prosecution, not interfered with. D

,Appellant-accused 1 was prosecuted ulss. 394 and
.r 302/34 IPC, alongwith four other accused persons. He
was convicted for all the above charges by trial court.
High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant u/
E
s. 394 IPC and acquitted hi"} u/s. 302/34 IPC. Hence the
present appeal.

Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
High Court, the Court
r F
HELD: 1. The order of the High Court is absolutely
sketchy and practically unreasoned. 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 G
desired. The High Court even did not make an attempt to
analyse the evidence of the witnesses. The matter is
remitted to the High Court to deal with the appeal so far
,}-
as it relates to A-1. [Para 4] [311-D, E, F]
309 H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A 2, A-1 was acquitted of the charge under 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
B judgment shall remain unaltered. [Para 5] [312-A, B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 88 of 2002.

From the final Ju~gment and Order dated 12.10.2000 of
C the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 1999.

R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, P. Vijaya Kumar and
D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellant.
D
I. Venkatanarayana, D. Bharathi Reddy, and Altaf Fatima
for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by l
E DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
/
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
F present appellant-A 1 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 imprisonment for a period of ten years and
G 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
H
-r

SUDHEER SINGH @ SUDHEER v. STATE OF A.P. 311
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

with Section 34 IPC. The learned trial judge found A-1 to A-3 A
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 B
persons and sentenced each one of them to three years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default
t
i stipulation.

3. According to the prosecution, on 10.7.1992 at about
9.30 p.m. at Muslimgunj bridge all the accused persons caused c
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 . D
....
_J
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 E
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
F
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.
G
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
H
....
I
1111(
'-
!'.>'

312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A 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
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
B 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. \ '

c 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.

.I
)..

i