P. NAGESH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 66 · Decided: 09-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 66 
P. NAGESH AND ANOTHER 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 2013) 
JULY 9, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 364, 379, 201 rlw s.34 -
C Murder case - Conviction of accused-appellants by trial court 
- Upheld by High Court in appeal - Held: The High Court 
being the Appellate Court was required to deal with each and 
evety question raised on behalf of the appellants - Though 
such questions were raised before the trial court as well as 
D the High Court, the High Court failed to discuss and decide 
the questions raised by the appellants - Matt~r therefore 
remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance 
with law - Appellants permitted to raise all the questions and 
objection__s as raised in this appeal or as taken before the High 
E Court - Respondents may also contest the case in support of 
the judgment passed by the trial court - Practice & Procedure. 
In a case relating to muruer of a person, the trial court, 
relying on circumstantial evidence held the appellants 
F (accused Nos. 1 and 2) guilty and convicted them under 
Sections 364, 302, 379, 201 read with Section 34 of the 
IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for 
life. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench held 
that the accused persons had failed to explain the 
G circumstances under which they had come in 
possession of the motor cycle belonging to PW-1 which 
had been used by the deceased and, therefore, the 
presumption would arise against the accused under 
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and accordingly, upheld 
H 
66 
•. 
P. NAGESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
67 
the order of conviction recorded by the trial court based 
A 
on the circumstantial evidence. 
This Court issued notice to the respondent limited to 
the question as to whether the matter can be remitted 
back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance 
B 
with law. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court being the Appellate Court 
was required to deal with each and every question raised c 
on behalf of the appellants. Though such questions were 
raised before the trial court as well as the High Cou~ it 
is found that the High Court failed to discuss and decide 
the questions raised by the appellants. [Para 7] [72-E-F] 
D 
2. In view of the finding recorded above, the C'ase 
should be remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal 
in accordance with law. The impugned judgment passed 
by the Division Bench of the High Court is, accordingly, 
set aside. The case is remitted back to the High Court for 
E 
fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with law. It will 
be open to the appellants to raise all the questions and 
objections as raised in this appeal or as taken before the 
High Court. The respondents may also contest the case 
in support of the judgment passed by the trial court. [Para 
F 
8] [72-F-H; 73-A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 887 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2010 of the 
G 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. A. No. 968 of 
2006. 
C.S. Rajan, P. Rajesh, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan for the 
.. 
Appellants. 
H 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This 
B petition has been preferred by the appellants against the 
judgment dated 19th January, 2010 passed by the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal 
Appeal No.968. of 2006. By the impugned judgment, the 
Division Bench upheld the order of conviction recorded by the 
trial court based on the circumstantial evidence. 
c 
The Presiding Officer, the Fast Track Court-IX, Bangalore 
City by its judgment dated 10th April, 2006, relying on 
circumstantial evidence held the appellants (accused Nos. 1 
and 2) guilty and convicted them for the offence punishable 
D under Sections 364, 302, 379, 201 read with Section 34 of the 
IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and 
a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six 
months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC; 
rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.2,000/ 
E 
in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the 
offence punishable under Section 364 of the IPC; five years 
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple 
imprisonment for three months for the

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