SUDHEER SINGH @ SUDHEER v. STATE OF A.P.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
C.K. Thakker
Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Judgment Date: 2008-10-22
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal disposed of; the matter is remitted to the High Court to deal with the appeal so far as it relates to A-1. The acquittals of A-2 and A-3 on 302/34 remain unaltered, and A-1’s acquittal on 302/34 is to stand. The High Court is to reexamine A-1’s conviction under 394 IPC with due analysis of the evidence; the final disposition of the remaining counts is preserved as per the High Court’s findings.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SUDHEER SINGH @ SUDHEER

Respondents

STATE OF A.P.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R. Santhan Krishnan
• K. Radha Rani
• P. Vijaya Kumar
• D. Mahesh Babu

Counsels for Respondents

• I. Venkatanarayana
• D. Bharathi Reddy
• Altaf Fatima

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sudheer Singh @ Sudheer v. State of Andhra Pradesh concerns an appeal arising from conviction of five accused for offences including under Section 394 IPC (robbery) and Section 302/34 IPC (murder). The trial court convicted A-1 to A-5 on the 394 count; A-2 faced an additional charge under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC; the court also held all five guilty of Section 302/34 IPC. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, by a Division Bench, dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of A-1 to A-3 under Section 394 IPC, while acquitting them under Section 302/34 IPC; it also convicted A-1 to A-5 under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court’s order is criticized by the Supreme Court as sketchy and unreasoned, with little or no analysis of the evidence and witnesses. The matter is remitted to the High Court to deal with the appeal as it relates to A-1. The Supreme Court notes that the prosecution did not challenge the acquittal of A-2 and A-3 on 302/34, so that part remains unaltered, and it clarifies the disposition of other charges. The overall result is a remand to reexamine A-1’s conviction under 394 IPC while leaving the related acquittals on 302/34 and the acquittals of A-2 and A-3 intact. The decision underscores the need for a reasoned, detailed analysis of evidence in criminal appeals.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Section 302IPC Section 394IPC Section 302/34IPC Section 395IPC Section 397IPC Section 307IPC Section 34

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the High Court’s order is wholly sketchy and unreasoned, failing to analyse the evidence and the witnesses, and that the appeal requires a detailed reappraisal of the evidence particularly with respect to A-1’s conviction under 394 IPC and the related acquittal on the 302/34 charge. They submit that the High Court did not provide adequate reasoning for upholding the conviction of A-1 to A-3 under 394 IPC and for the multi-count convictions. They urge a proper examination of the testimony and materials at the High Court level to ensure a fair, reasoned decision, especially in light of the remand powers of this Court and the need to correct any substantial errors in the evidentiary evaluation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that the High Court’s judgment appropriately disposed of the appeal, confirming the conviction of A-1 to A-3 under 394 IPC and handling other charges as found by the trial court. They argue that the High Court correctly considered the evidence, and the acquittals of A-2 and A-3 on 302/34 were proper, given the phrasing of the charges and the evidence. They also contend that the prosecution did not challenge certain acquittals, and thus those portions should remain intact. The respondents urge that the High Court’s conclusions be treated as sound and that there is no necessity for further detailed analysis by this Court beyond what was already presented.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 309 A ~ ~ _,}-_ ## SUDHEER SINGH @ SUDHEER _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.] _.r_ _Penal Code, 1860_ - _ss. 302134 and 394_ - _Prosecution under_ - _Conviction by trial court_ - _High Court convicting the 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._ , Appellant-accused 1 was prosecuted ulss. 394 and 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/ s. 394 IPC and acquitted hi"} u/s. 302/34 IPC. Hence the present appeal. G D E Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court r 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 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 F G H [2008] 15 S.C.R. 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 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. R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, P. Vijaya Kumar and D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellant. / D I. Venkatanarayana, D. Bharathi Reddy, and Altaf Fatima for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. E 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 l H -r SUDHEER SINGH @ SUDHEER _v._ STATE OF A.P. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 311 t _i_ 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 rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. B 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 10, the factual position has been elaborated. Thereafter, 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 desired. The High Court even did not make an attempt to analyse the evidence of the witnesses. What would have happened had that exercise being undertaken cannot be decided in these proceedings. The impugned judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to deal with the appeal so far as it relates to A-1 is concerned. E F G 5. It is to be noted that the appeal filed by A-2 and A-3 was allowed and the conviction and the sentence imposed were set aside. Since the prosecution has not challenged the order of the High Court, so far it relates to directing the acquittal of H .... I 1111( 312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. A A-2 and A-3 is concerned, the same remains unaltered. We have interfered in the matter ,because the judgment of the High Court is practically unreasoned and the evidence has not been analysed in detail. As a matter of fact, A-1 was also acquitted of the charge of Section 302 read with 34 IPC and the conviction B 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 judgment shall remain unaltered. _{_ \ c 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. K.K.T. Appeal disposed of. _.I_ ).. i