LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus NINGAPPA @ BHYRAPPA @ NINGEGOWDA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J (2009) 3 S.C.R. 161 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. NINGAPPA @ BHYRAPPA @ NINGEGOWDA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2009) FEBRUARY 11, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.) Criminal Appeal - Appeal against conviction - Manner A 8 of disposal - Conviction recorded by Trial Court - Set aside C by High Court by a cryptic and practically non-reasoned order - Justification of - Held: Not justified - There was practically no analysis of the evidence by High Court, more particularly · of the eye-witnesses who claimed to have suffered injuries in the incident - Dying declaration purportedly made by D deceased was also not discussed by High Court- Trial Court had analyzed the evidence in great detail - High Court did not make an effort to indicate as to how the conclusions of Trial Court was erroneous and/or contrary to evidence on record - Such casual disposal of appeal is neither proper nor E desirable - Hence, matter remitted to High Court - Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 Part-I and s.304 Part-II. The respondents were charged for alleged intentional commission of murder. The Sessions Judge convicted respondent no.1 in terms of Section 304 Part I F IPC and respondent no.2 in terms of Section 304 Part II. High Court allowed appeal filed by respondents. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High G Court for fresh consideration on merits, the Court HELD: 1. It is shocking to find that the High Court by a cryptic and practically non-reasoned order has set aside 161 H 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R. A the conviction of the respondents in respect of their conviction in terms of Section 304 Part-I and 304 Part-II respectively. There is practically no analysis of the evidence, more particularly of the eye-witness PWs. 1 to 3 and 9 and 10. They also claimed to have suffered B injuries in the incident. Additionally, dying declaration purported to have been made by the deceased has also not been discussed. [Paras 5 and 6] [163-G-H; 164-A] 2. The Sessions Judge's order shows that he had C analysed the evidence in great detail. The High Court did not make an effort to indicate as to how the conclusions were erroneous and/or contrary to evidence on record. The manner in which the appeal has been disposed of leaves much to be desired. Such casual disposal of appeal setting aside the conviction, is neither proper nor D desirable. [Para 7] [164-8-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2009. E From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1235 of 2000. Anitha Shenoy for the Appellant. F Kiran Suri for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. G 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents so far as their conviction for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') is concerned. Learned Principal Sessions H Judge, Mysore, in Sessions Case No.8/1996 convicted STATE OF KARNATAKA v. NINGAPPA@BHYRAPPA@ 163 NINGEGOWDA & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] . ..., respondent no.1 in terms of Section 304 Part I IPC. So far as A respondent no.2 is concerned, he was convicted in terms of Section 304 Part II. The conviction of respondent nos.1 & 2 for offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC was confirmed. B 3. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects in detail in view of the order proposed to be passed. 4. Nine persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 149, 324, 114 c read with Section 302 IPC. The prosecution related to an incident on 29.9.199S. The respondents were charged for alleged intentional commission of murder of one Venkatesha Gowda (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'). In order to substantiate the offence six witnesses were examined. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record, inter alia, D - concluded as follows: "The discussion supra clearly goes to show that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that A 1 had been guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 E - Part-I IPC, A3 had committed offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. A 1, A2 and A4 had committed .. offence punishable
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.