SUDHEER SINGH @ SUDHEER versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 22-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 309 
SUDHEER SINGH @ SUDHEER 
A 
~ 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2002) 
OCTOBER 22, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
~ 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 and 394 - Prosecution 
under - Conviction by trial court - High Court convicting the 
G 
accused uls. 394 while acquitting him u/s. 302134 - On 
appeal, held: Order of the High Court being sketchy, 
unreasoned and without analysis of evidence, matter remitted 
to High Court - Since Order of acquittal not challenged by 
prosecution, not interfered with. 
D 
, Appellant-accused 1 was prosecuted ulss. 394 and 
.r 
302/34 IPC, alongwith four other accused persons. He 
was convicted for all the above charges by trial court. 
High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant u/ 
E 
s. 394 IPC and acquitted hi"} u/s. 302/34 IPC. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to 
High Court, the Court 
r 
F 
HELD: 1. The order of the High Court is absolutely 
sketchy and practically unreasoned. By an abrupt 
conclusion the High Court upheld the judgment of the 
trial court and maintained the conviction. The manner in 
which the appeal was disposed of, leaves much to be 
G 
desired. The High Court even did not make an attempt to 
analyse the evidence of the witnesses. The matter is 
,}-
remitted to the High Court to deal with the appeal so far 
as it relates to A-1. [Para 4] [311-D, E, F] 
309 
H 
/ 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
2, A-1 was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 
read with 34 IPC and the conviction was restricted to 
Section 394 IPC. As the prosecution has not questioned 
the acquittal of the appellant, so far as it relates to Section 
302 read with 34 IPC is concerned, that part of the 
B judgment shall remain unaltered. [Para 5] [312-A, B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 88 of 2002. 
From the final Ju~gment and Order dated 12.10.2000 of 
C the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad 
in Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 1999. 
D 
R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, P. Vijaya Kumar and 
D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellant. 
I. Venkatanarayana, D. Bharathi Reddy, and Altaf Fatima 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
parties. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra 
Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing the appeal filed by the 
F 
present appellant-A 1 and A-2 and A-3 before the High Court. 
Out of the five persons, who faced trial, appellants were found 
guilty of offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). Each was sentenced to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and 
G to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. A-2 was 
further charged for _an offence punishable under Section 395 
read with Section 397 IPC. The learned trial judge found him 
not guilty and acquitted him of the said charge. The 3rd charge 
against all the accused persons was under Section 302 read 
H 
l 
-r 
SUDHEER SINGH @ SUDHEER v. STATE OF A.P. 
311 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
with Section 34 IPC. The learned trial judge found A-1 to A-3 
A 
guilty under the aforesaid charge and convicted each one of 
them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of 
Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. The 4th charge against A-1 
to A-5 was under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and 
the learned trial judge convicted each of the aforesaid accused 
B 
persons and sentenced each one of them to three years 
t 
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default 
i 
stipulation. 
3. According to the prosecution, on 10.7.1992 at about c 
9.30 p.m. at Muslimgunj bridge all the accused persons caused 
the death of one Govindlal (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
deceased'). It was further alleged that they caused injuries to 
P.W.1. The accused, allegedly, had stolen Rs.1,50,000/- and the 
scooter belonging to P.W.-1 bearing R.T.O. Registration No. 
AP-12-1090 . 
D 
.... _J 
4. It is not necessary to deal with the factual position in 
detail, in view of the fact that the order of the High Court is 
absolutely sketchy and practically unreasoned. Out of the 12 
pages of the judgment appearing in the paper book, upto para 
E 
10, the factual position has been elaborated. Thereafter, by an 
abrupt conclusion th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.