SANGAPPA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 09-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 213 
SANGAPPA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2010) 
MARCH 9, 2010 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 (1) and (3) -
Prosecution ulss. 447, 504, 302 rlw s. 34 /PC - Acquittal by C 
trial court - High Court reversing acquittal order and convicting 
u/s. 304 (Part-II) r/w s. 34 /PC -On appeal, held: The manner 
in which High Court disposed of appeal against acquittal is 
not correct - High Court altered the acquittal order without 
discussing and re-appreciating the evidence and without 
D 
giving reasons for convicting the accused uls. 304(Part II) rlw 
s. 34 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 447, 504, 302 rlw Section 34. 
The appellants-accused were prosecuted for the 
offences punishable u/ss. 447, 504, 302 r/w Section 34 
E 
IPC. The trial court acquitted the accused of all the 
charges. The High Court reversing the order of acquittal, 
convicted the accused u/s. 304 (Part-II) r/w Section 34 IPC. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The manner in which the High Court 
disposed of the appeal u/s 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C., is bad. 
F 
It is true that in an appeal from acquittal, the High Court 
has full power to re-appreciate and re-assess the entire G 
evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded 
and then to come to its own conclusion. There is no 
limitation placed on that power of the High Court. Cr.P.C. 
makes no difference in the power of the appellate court, 
between appeal filed by the State or by other person but 
H 
213 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A the appellate court would not be justified merely because 
it feels that a different view should be taken for reasons 
which are not so strong. The High Court in exercising the 
power conferred by Cr.P.C. and before reaching its 
conclusion upon facts, shall give always proper weight 
B and consideration to such matters as (1) the view of the 
trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the 
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a 
presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that they 
have been acquitted at trial; (3) the right of the accused 
c to the benefit of any doubt. [Para 9] [217-F-H; 218-A-B] 
2. The High Court, in the present case, did not 
discuss and re-appreciate the evidence of PW-1 who is 
stated to .be the only eye-witness to the incident, but 
mainly observed that "the contents of IR and the 
D evidence of PW-1 are very well corroborated by injuries 
found on the dead body noted in the P.M report." This is 
not re-appraisal or re-appreciation of the evidence of PW .. 
1. The High Court did not even notice the nature of 
injuries on the body of the deceased. There Is no 
E discussion about the medical evidence. There is no 
discussion as to how all the accused could be convicted 
with the aid of Section 34, IPC. There is nothing on record 
suggesting as to the basis on which the High Court 
arrived at conclusion that the accused would be guilty of 
F offence under Section 304 (Part-II) and not for the offence 
under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. [Para 1 O] 
[218-C-F] . 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
G No. 448 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.6.2009 of the High 
Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Criminal 
Appeal No. 956 of 2004. 
H 
BPS Patil, Ajay Kumar, M.B. Subrahmanya Prasad, R.D. 
Upadhyay for the Appellants. 
SANGAPPA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
215 
Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Rohan Singh, Ramesh S. Jadhav, 
A 
Vikrant Yadav for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. All the accused-appellants were charged and tried for 
the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 302 read with 
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but were acquitted 
8 
of all the charges by the trial court. On appeal preferred by the 
State of Karnataka, the High Court reversed the order of c ' 
acquittal in relation to all the appellants and conviqted them 
under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of the IPC and 
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period 
of two years and imposed a fine of Rs.30,000/- each, in default, 
to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years. 
o 
Few Relevant Facts: 
3. On 9th September, 1998 at about 6.00 p.m. one 
Shivalingayya lodged a first information report before the Sub-
Inspector of Yedra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.