ISHV ARBHAI FULJIBHAI PA TNI

STATE OF GUJARAT

NOVEMBER 24, 1994

[DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 386--/ndian Penal Code, 1860---Section 302-Appeal against conviction-Conviction upheld-

Evidence not discussed-Cryptic judgment conviction not sustainable.

The appellant was found guilty of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant holding that the trial court had rightly separated the case of the appellant from the case of the rest of the D accused who had been acquitted and that his conviction and sentence did not require interference. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction as upheld by the High Court.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HE!-D : Since, the High Court was dealing with the appeal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, it was required to consider and discuss the evidence

and deal with the argument raised at the bar. In this case none of the F arguments of the counsel for the appellant have been noticed, much less considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptic. On a plain requirement of justice, the High Court while dealing with the first appeal against conviction and sentence is expected to, howsoever, G briefly, depending upon the facts of the case, consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the submissions raised at the bar. If it fails to do so, it apparently fails in the discharge of one of its essential jurisdiction under its appellate powers. In view of the infirmities pointed out, the

judgment under appeal cannot be sustained. [67 A-F] H

A .CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No .. 832 ·

of 1994.

From Judgment.and Order dated 14th December, 1993 of the High

Court of Gujarat in CFiminal Appea~ No. ll92/93.

Vimal Dave for the Appellant.

Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent.

C The following Order of the court was delivered:

Leae granted

The appellant alongwith three others was tried by the teamed Sessions D Judge at Ahmedabad and found guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC.

He. was :sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant was also ·

found guilty of an offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act but

no separate sentence was pronounced for the said offence. The .appellant E : fild the first appeal against his conviction and sentence before the High

Court .. By its judgment dated 14th December, 1993, the High. Court

dismissed .the appeal filed by the appellant holding inter a/ia that the trial . . .

I . court had rightly separ.ated the case. of the appellant from the case of the

rest of the acused who had been acquitted and that his conviction and F sentence did not require interference. Aggrieved, the apl?ellant is before us

through this appeal.

We have gone thr<?ugh the judgment of the High Court dated 14th

December, 1993 and l!-fe pained to note that after narrating the prosecution

case, the only discussion for the purpose of disposal of the appeal is

contained in paragraph of the judgment which reads thus:

"For this purpose, the record was called for and after perusal

of the original record, we are satisfied about the correctness

. I. F: PATNI v. STATE OF GUJARAT 67

of the aforesaid conclusion. It is very much warranted by the A

evidence OQ record and the learned Sessions Judge, . . . .

Ahnledabad, after tak.ing into consideration the entire

material placed before him .and properly appreciating the

 aruments advanced. on either side ham hed that the B

accused-appellant is guilty. We, therefore, would not

interfere in this matter for the reasons stateq above and the

matter is dismissed.''

Since; the High Court was dealing with the appeal in exercise of its C

appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment,

it was required to consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the

arguments raised at th~ bar. Let alone; any discussion of the evidence, we

do not find that the High Cou, rt even cared .to notice the evidence led in the D case. None of the arguments of the le!iflled counsel for the appellant have

been noticed, much less considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptiC

and we are at loss to understand as to what prevailed with the High Court to

uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant. On a plain requirementof justice, the High Court while dealing with a first appeal against E

conviction and sentence.is expeced to, howsoever, briefly, depening upon

the facts of the case; consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the

submissions raised at the bar. If it fails to do so, it apparently fails in the

discharge of one of its essential jurisdiction under its appellate powers. In F

view of the infirmities pointd out by us, the judgment under appeal cannot.

be sustained. We, therefore, accept die appeal, set aside the judgment Of

the.High Court and remand the case to the High Court for its fresh disppsal

after hearing. the appeal on merits in accrdane with law, We -clarify that •

we hve not gone into the merits of the case and no observation made by us G

shall be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Since, the appellant is in custody, we request the High Court to dispose

of the appeal within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy.of H

A this order. The appellant shall, however, continue to remain in custody till

the disposal of the appeal by the High Court, unless admitted to bail by the

High Court in the meanwhile.

A.G.

Appeal allowed