ISHVARBHAI FULJIBHAI PATNI versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 65 · Decided: 24-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

_, 
ISHV ARBHAI FULJIBHAI PA TNI 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
NOVEMBER 24, 1994 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 386--/ndian Penal Code, 
1860---Section 302-Appeal against conviction-Conviction upheld-
A 
B 
Evidence not discussed-Cryptic judgment conviction not sustainable. 
C 
The appellant was found guilty of offence u/s 302 IPC and 
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The High Court dismissed 
the appeal filed by the appellant holding that the trial court had rightly 
separated the case of the appellant from the case of the rest of the D 
accused who had been acquitted and that his conviction and sentence 
did not require interference. This appeal has been filed against the 
judgment of conviction as upheld by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HE!-D : Since, the High Court was dealing with the appeal in 
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of 
life imprisonment, it was required to consider and discuss the evidence 
E 
and deal with the argument raised at the bar. In this case none of the F 
arguments of the counsel for the appellant have been noticed, much less 
considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptic. On a plain 
requirement of justice, the High Court while dealing with the first 
appeal against conviction and sentence is expected to, howsoever, G 
briefly, depending upon the facts of the case, consider and discuss the 
evidence and deal with the submissions raised at the bar. If it fails to do 
so, it apparently fails in the discharge of one of its essential jurisdiction 
under its appellate powers. In view of the infirmities pointed out, the 
judgment under appeal cannot be sustained. [67 A-F] 
H 
65 
66 
·1 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
.CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No .. 832 · 
B 
of 1994. 
From Judgment.and Order dated 14th December, 1993 of the High 
Court of Gujarat in CFiminal Appea~ No. ll92/93. 
Vimal Dave for the Appellant. 
Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent. 
C 
The following Order of the court was delivered: 
Lea~e granted 
The appellant alongwith three others was tried· by the teamed Sessions 
D 
Judge at Ahmedabad and found guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC. 
He. was :sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant was also · 
found guilty of an offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act but 
no separate sentence was pronounced for the said offence. The .appellant 
E : · fil~d the first appeal against his conviction and sentence before the High 
Court .. By its judgment dated 14th December, 1993, the High·. Court 
dismissed .the appeal filed by the appellant holding inter a/ia that the trial 
. 
. 
. 
I . 
court had rightly separ.ated the case. of the appellant from the case of the 
rest of the a~cused who had· been acquitted and that his conviction and 
F 
sentence did not require interference. Aggrieved, the apl?ellant is before us 
through this appeal. 
G 
H 
We have gone thr<?ugh the judgment of the High Court dated 14th 
December, 1993 and l!-fe pained to note that after narrating the prosecution 
case, the only discussion for the purpose of disposal of the appeal is 
contained in paragraph of the judgment which reads thus: 
"For this purpose, the record was called for and after perusal 
of the original record, we are satisfied about the correctness 
. I. F: PATNI v. STATE OF GUJARAT· 
67 
of the aforesaid conclusion. It is very much warranted by the A 
evidence 
OQ record and · the learned Sessions Judge, 
. . . 
. 
Ahnledabad, after tak.ing into consideration the entire 
material placed before him .and properly appreciating the 
· ar~uments advanced. on either · side ham he~d that the B 
accused-appellant is guilty. We, therefore, would not 
interfere in this matter for the reasons stateq above and the 
matter is dismissed.'' 
Since; the High Court was dealing with the appeal in exercise of its C 
appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, 
it was required to consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the 
arguments raised at th~ bar. Let alone; any discussion of the evidence, we 
do not find that the High Cou,rt even cared .to notice the evidence led in the D 
case. None of the arguments· of the le!iflled counsel for the appellant have 
been noticed, much less considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptiC 
and we are at loss to understand as to what prevailed with t

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