REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.133 OF 2002
Gurram Chakravarthy .....Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. ....
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding conviction of the appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short the `IPC’). The accused appellant faced trial for the alleged
commission of the aforesaid offence. The learned Sessions Judge,
Srikakulam convicted the appellant as aforenoted and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-
with default stipulation. By judgment dated 22.12.1998 the appeal filed
before the High Court was dismissed. The matter was carried before this
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2000 which was disposed of by order
dated 31st July, 2000. This court found that the manner of disposal of the
appeal left much to be desired. It was pointed out by this court that four
defence witnesses were examined to rebut the presumption created under
Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence
Act’). This Court noted that there was no discussion of the various aspects
including the acceptability of the evidence of the DWs. That being so, the
matter was remitted to the High Court. It was clearly stated that the High
Court cannot side line the defence version and the same has to be
considered to see whether the presumption has been rebutted by the
appellant. By the impugned judgment the High Court has again upheld the
conviction and the sentence imposed. Strangely, the High Court has not
discussed the evidence in detail. It has merely referred to the evidence of
the defence witnesses and come to the conclusion that the appeal was
without merit. Certainly it was not in the manner of disposal of the appeal
which this court had desired. We are conscious that the matter is pending
since long and it would not be in the interest of the party if the matter is
remitted to the High Court. But at the same time the inappropriate way of
2
disposing the appeal leading to the impugned judgment cannot be lost sight
of and the same cannot be maintained.
2. Above being the position, we set aside the impugned judgment of the
High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. As the matter
is pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as
early as practicable, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of
the order.
………………………………….J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
…………………………………..J.
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
New Delhi,
November 28, 2008
3