LexB. VISHWANATH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 840 A B. VISHWANATH ~· v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2008) B FEBRUARY 13, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] ;. ). ,;- ~ Practice and procedure: ' c Conviction by trial court for offence under ss. 307, 427 and 448 /PC-Appeal of accused - Disposed of by High Court without indicating in the order as to whether it was allowed or ~ dismissed - Order contained certain observations - On pointing out that there was no result of appeal, matter listed r and High Court held that for reasons and discussions made J. D in earlier order, order of conviction and sentence confirmed ,_ and dismissed the appeal - Propriety of - Held: Procedure ,.... adopted by High Court not proper - High Court ought to have appreciated the rival stands and analysed the evidence in its i proper perspective to arrive at conclusion - Matter remitted to ~ E High Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 307, 427 and 448 - l '\ Judgment/Order - Appeal. The prosecution case was that the accused trespassed into the house and assaulted his sister-in-law l· PW-1 and his mother PW-2 with sickle. Trial Court found F him guilty for offence punishable under· ss.307, 427 and '1 448 IPC. The accused filed appeal before the High Court. On 1.7.2006, High Court disposed of the appeal. There was no indication in the order as to whether the appeal was dismissed or allowed. Only certain directions were G given to the Secretary, Home Department and Director ·' General of Police to strictly comply with the observations ·'· y,. k that the Investigating Officers were to refer the blood i stained articles and the blood samples of the victim/ r-.. accused, as the c.ase may be, to the Medical College H 840 ~ B. VISHWANATH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 841 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] Hospital in the District or in the neighbouring Distr:ict A which has Forensic Science Laboratory to give repprt regarding the blood group. It was further directed that the Police Manual needs to be suitably amended to incorporate the suggested procedure for mandatory compliance in the protocol of investigation. When it was B pointed out to the High Court Judge that there was no ~ .... result of the appeal, the matter was listed under the - heading "For being spoken to" and on 31.3.2007, it was observed that for the reasons and discussions made, the order of conviction and sentence is confirmed and appeal c is dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to Hig'h Court, the Court HELD: 1. The procedure adopted by High Court is D clearly not appropriate. [Para 4] [842-G] 2. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court has only one characteristic i.e. brevity. It has no other characteristic. It does not even refer to the various aspects and briefly refers to the evidence of the witnesses. E It needs no emphasis that the Appellate Court exercising • appellate powers has not only to consider various points but objectively and critically analyse the evidence. That has not been done. The manner in which the appeal has )' been dealt with is not a correct way to deal with the appeal.. F No serious attempt appears to have been done by the. High Court to appreciate the rival stand and/or to analyse the evidence in its proper perspective. [Paras 5, 6, 14] [842-G & H; 843-A; 845-D] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal G ). 't Nos. 306 of 2008. ) From the Judgment and Order dated 1.7.2006 and 31.3.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 993/2001. H 1 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A V.N. Raghupathy and Rami Thomas for the Appellant. .I. Sanjay R. Hegde and Amit Kr. Chawla for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. Before we ,. -'"- deal with the appeals in detail, it is necessary to highlight certain ... disturbing features. c 3. The appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of on 1. 7 .2006. There was no indication in the order as to whether the appeal was dismissed or allowed. Only certain directions were given to the Secretary, Home Department and Director General of Police to strictly comply with the observations that D the Investigating Officers were to refer the blood stained articles and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.