PRASAD @ HARI PRASAD ACHARYA versus ST ATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1089 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1089 
PRASAD@ HARi PRASAD ACHARYA 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF KAR NAT AKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Criminal Appeal - High Court upheld conviction by a 
non-reasoned order - Justification of - Held: Not justified -
c 
High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, 
in its order indicative of an application of its mind - Absence 
of reasons rendered the High Court's judgment unsustainable 
- Hence, matter remitted to High Court - Principles of natural 
• f 
justice - Right to reason. 
D 
' 
The trial court convicted the accused-appellant under 
ss.447, 376(2)(g) and 506 IPC rlw s.34 IPC. In appeal, High 
Court upheld the conviction. 
In appeal to this Court, the judgment passed by the 
E 
High Court was challenged on the ground that it was 
practically non-reasoned. It was contended that the High 
Court did not analyze the evidence and arrived at abrupt 
conclusions about the guilt of the accused. 
F 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
\ 
HELD: 1. A bare perusal of the High Court's 
impugned judgment shows that the same is non-
G 
reasoned and no basis or reasons have been indicated 
~ 
by the High Court and there is not even analysis of the 
evidence. Various infirmities pointed out by the accused 
to throw doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution 
1089 
H 
1090 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A evidence are not even referred to. [Para 7) [1092-D] 
2. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest 
consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set 
forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative 
8 of an application of its mind. The absence of reasons has 
rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. 
[Para 8] [1092-E-F] 
3. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The 
emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision 
C reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its 
silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to 
perform their appellate function or exercise the power of 
judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. 
Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound 
D judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an 
application of mind to the matter before court. Another 
rationale is that the affected party can know why the 
decision has gone against him. One of the salutary 
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for 
E the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The 
"inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily 
incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 
[Para 9) [1092-H; 1093-A-C] 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER 
F 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 197 4 
ICR 120 (NIRC), referred to. 
4. This Court is dismayed at the casual manner in 
which the criminal appeal has been disposed of. In the 
G circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and 
the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh 
consideration in accordance with law. [Para 10] [1093-D] 
~ ' 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
H No.242 of 2009. 
PRASAD @ HARi PRASAD ACHARYA v. ST ATE OF 
1091 
KARNATAKA 
.-~ 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 6.6.2006 of the 
A 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No.693 
of 2005. 
Nagendra Kumar Sahoo (A.C.) for the Appellant. 
Anitha Shenoy for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.. 
~ 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment ofa learned c 
Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court upholding the 
conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under 
Sections 447, 376(2)(g) and 506 read with Section 34 of the 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Various custodial 
sentences were imposed on the appellant and one Sathish. 
D 
-. 
3. It is not necessary to refer to the factual aspects in detail 
in view of the order proposed to be passed. 
4. It was the prosecution case that on 30.4.2003 around 
E 
midnight both the accused persons went to the house of the 
victim, the prosecutrix (PW-1). They called out her husband. He 
came out after lighting the kerosene lamp and found the 
accused persons. The prosecutrix was compelled by the 
.( 
accused persons to follow them to the jungle and she was 
threatened that if she did not do so her hut would be set on fire. 
F 
W
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.