GURRAM CHAKRAVARTHY versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 732 · Decided: 28-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

...
'[2008] 16 S.C.R. 732 
,..
A 
GURRAM CHAKRAVARTHY 
~ 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 2002) 
B 
NOVEMBER 28, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
... 
~ 
Appeal: Criminal appeal -
Manner of disposal -
c Conviction by Trial Court - Affirmed by High Court - On 
appeal, Supreme Court remitted the matter to High Court 
observing that the defence witnesses were examined but no 
discussion on various aspects including the acceptability of 
their evidence was recorded - High Court again upheld the 
D conviction without discussing the evidence in detail - On 
appeal, held: The disposal of the appeal by High Court was 
hot in the desirable manner - Inappropriate way of disposing 
of the appeal leading to impugned judgment cannot be lost 
"' 
sight of and same cannot be maintained - Matter remitted to 
'f 
E 
High Court. 
The appellant was convicted under s.3048 IPC. On 
appeal, High Court upheld the conviction. When the 
matter came before this Court, it was remitted to High 
Court with the observation that four defence witnesses 
F were examined to rebut the presumption under s.1138 of 
, 
the Evidence Act, 1872, but there was no discussion on 
'.>--
various aspects including the acceptability of evidence 
of those. witnesses. It was clearly stated that the High 
-
Court could not sideline the defence version. 
G 
The High Court again upheld the conviction and 
the sentence imposed without discussing the evidence 
.... 
in detail. It merely referred to the evidence of defence 
+ 
witnesses and. came to conclusion that the appeal was 
H 
732 
~ 
*· 
GURRAM CHAKRAVARTHYv. STATE OF A.P. 
733 
"' 
without merit. Hence the instant appeal. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to 
High Court, the Court 
HELD: The disposal of the appeal was not in the 
B 
manner which this court had desired. The inappropriate 
.. 
way of disposing of the appeal leading to the impugned 
judgment cannot be lost sight of and the same cannot be 
)--
maintained. As the matter is pending for long, the High 
Court is requested to dispose of the appeal as early as c 
practicable preferably within six months of receipt of the 
order. [Paras 1 and 2] [734-E-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 133 of 2002. 
From the final Judgment dated 23.2.2001 of the High Court 
D 
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal 
-
Appeal No. 11 of 1996. 
~'t' 
Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Ramesh and Y. Vismai for the 
Appellant. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. This appeal is directed 
against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra 
F 
Pradesh High Court upholding conviction of the appellant for 
' -
the offence punishable under Section 304(8) of the Indian Penal 
, 
~ 
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The accused appellant faced 
trial for the alleged commission of the aforesaid offence. The 
learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam convicted the appellant 
as aforenoted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous G 
imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with 
>-
default stipulation. By judgment dated 22.12.1998 the appeal 
;, 
filed before the High Court was dismissed. The matter was 
carried before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2000 
which was disposed of by order dated 31st July, 2000. This 
H 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
~
A court found that the m_anner of disposal of the appeal left much 
., 
to be desired. It was pointed out by this co~rt that four defence 
· witnesses .were examined to rebut the presumption created 
under Section 113(8) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 
the 'Evidence Act'). This Court noted that there was no 
B discussion of the various aspects including the acceptability of 
the· evid~nce of the DWs. That being so, the matter was 
... 
remitted to the High Cour:t. It was clearly stated that the High 
Court cannot side line the defence version and the same has 
~ 
to be considered to see whether the presumption has been 
c rebutted by the appellant. By the impugned judgment the High 
Court has again upheld the conviction and· the sentence 
imposed. Strangely, the High Court has not discussed the 
evidence in detail. It has merely referred to the evidence of the 
defence witnesses and come to the conclusion that the appeal 
D was without merit. Certainly it was not in the manner of disposal 
of the appeal which this court had desired. We are conscious 
that the matter i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.