Sudheer Singh @ Sudheer v. State of A.P.
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
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 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 F 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. 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
....
I
1111(
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