A
B
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 870
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
v.
NARESH KUMAR @ KAKA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.1202 of 2003)
APRIL 22, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 read with s.34, s.323 read with
C s.34 - Conviction under, by Trial Court - High Court ordered
acquittal - On appeal, held : High Court did not analyse
evidence in detail and came to abrupt conclusion about
prosecution version being not credible - Matter remitted to
High Court.
D
E
Trial Court convicted the respondents-accused
persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 323
read with Section 34 IPC. High Court acquitted the
respondents. State filed present appeal.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court
HELD: The High Court did not analyse the evidence
in detail. It came to certain abrupt conclusions about the
F prosecution version being not credible. Since High Court
was upsetting a judgment of the trial court which was
rendered after analysing the evidence, the causal manner
in which the appeal was disposed of, allowing the appeal
filed by the respondent-accused persons was certainly
G not the proper course to be adopted. [Para 3) [871-E-G]
H
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1202 of 2003.
870
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARESH
871
KUMAR @ KAKA & ORS .
•
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.6.2002 of the High
A
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.
563 of 2000.
Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.
Sidhartha Luthara, Bina Madhavan, Mohamad Feroz, Tarun
B
Satija (for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.) for the Respondent.
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is c
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court directing acquittal of the respondents who faced trial
of alleged commission of offences punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'the IPC').
D
~
2. Learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur had found the
present respondent-accused persons guilty and had convicted
each one of them and sentenced to imprisonment for life and
to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation. Learned
Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the co-accused Sunil
E
Kumar.
3. We need not deal with the factual aspects in detail
•
because we find that the High Court has not analysed the
evidence in detail. It has come to certain abrupt conclusions
F
about the prosecution version being not credible. Since the
High Court was upsetting a judgment of the Trial Court which
has been rendered after analysing the evidence, the casual
manner in which the appeal was disposed of allowing the
appeal filed by the present respondent-accused persons was
G
certainly not the proper course to be adopted.
4. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merit, we
set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the
High Court for fresh consideration.
H
872
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A
5. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the
High Court to explore the possibility of disposing of the appeal
as early as practicable and preferably by the end of September
2009.
8
6. After the acquittal when this Court granted leave, the
respondents were not in custody and bailable warrants were
issued. They will continue to be so till the disposal of the matter
afresh by the High Court.
7. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
c
D.G.
Appeal allowed.
•
Lex