Holding

The High Court’s procedure in disposing of the appeal was not proper; its order is set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Summary

B. Vishwanath was convicted by a trial court for offences under Sections 307, 427 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting his sister‑in‑law and mother with a sickle. He appealed to the Karnataka High Court, which on 1 July 2006 disposed of the appeal without indicating whether it was allowed or dismissed, merely directing police to follow certain forensic procedures. After the appellant pointed out the lack of a result, the High Court on 31 March 2007 confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal, again without a reasoned analysis of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s procedure was improper because it failed to objectively and critically examine the evidence or consider the rival stand. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, allowing the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court may dispose of a criminal appeal without expressly stating the result and without a reasoned analysis of the evidence.
Whether the Supreme Court can set aside such an order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 427, s. 448

Subjects

Criminal appealAppellate procedureEvidence analysisForensic evidenceIPC 307IPC 427IPC 448High Court orderSupreme Court

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 840

A B. VISHWANATH ~·
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 13, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
,;-
;. ).
~
Practice and procedure: '
Conviction by trial court for offence under ss. 307, 427
c and 448 /PC-Appeal of accused - Disposed of by High Court
without indicating in the order as to whether it was allowed or ~

dismissed - Order contained certain observations - On
pointing out that there was no result of appeal, matter listed r
J.
and High Court held that for reasons and discussions made
D in earlier order, order of conviction and sentence confirmed ,_
and dismissed the appeal - Propriety of - Held: Procedure ,....
adopted by High Court not proper - High Court ought to have
appreciated the rival stands and analysed the evidence in its
i
proper perspective to arrive at conclusion - Matter remitted to ~
l
E High Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 307, 427 and 448 - '\
Judgment/Order - Appeal.
The prosecution case was that the accused
trespassed into the house and assaulted his sister-in-law l·
PW-1 and his mother PW-2 with sickle. Trial Court found
F him guilty for offence punishable under· ss.307, 427 and
'1
448 IPC. The accused filed appeal before the High Court.
On 1.7.2006, High Court disposed of the appeal. There
was no indication in the order as to whether the appeal
was dismissed or allowed. Only certain directions were
G given to the Secretary, Home Department and Director
General of Police to strictly comply with the observations y,. ·'k·
·'
that the Investigating Officers were to refer the blood
stained articles and the blood samples of the victim/
accused, as the c.ase may be, to the Medical College
.i
r-

H 840
~
B. VISHWANATH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 841
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

Hospital in the District or in the neighbouring Distr:ict A
which has Forensic Science Laboratory to give repprt
regarding the blood group. It was further directed that the
Police Manual needs to be suitably amended to
incorporate the suggested procedure for mandatory
compliance in the protocol of investigation. When it was B
pointed out to the High Court Judge that there was no

- ~ .... result of the appeal, the matter was listed under the
heading "For being spoken to" and on 31.3.2007, it was
observed that for the reasons and discussions made, the
order of conviction and sentence is confirmed and appeal c
is dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to Hig'h
Court, the Court
HELD: 1. The procedure adopted by High Court is
D
clearly not appropriate. [Para 4] [842-G]
2. The impugned judgment and order of the High
Court has only one characteristic i.e. brevity. It has no
other characteristic. It does not even refer to the various
aspects and briefly refers to the evidence of the witnesses. E
It needs no emphasis that the Appellate Court exercising
• appellate powers has not only to consider various points
but objectively and critically analyse the evidence. That
has not been done. The manner in which the appeal has
)'
been dealt with is not a correct way to deal with the appeal.. F
No serious attempt appears to have been done by the.
High Court to appreciate the rival stand and/or to analyse
the evidence in its proper perspective. [Paras 5, 6, 14]
[842-G & H; 843-A; 845-D]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal G
). 't Nos. 306 of 2008.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.7.2006 and
)
31.3.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in
Criminal Appeal No. 993/2001.
H
1
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

.I.
A V.N. Raghupathy and Rami Thomas for the Appellant.
Sanjay R. Hegde and Amit Kr. Chawla for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. Before we ,. -'"-
...
deal with the appeals in detail, it is necessary to highlight certain
disturbing features.
c 3. The appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of on
1. 7 .2006. There was no indication in the order as to whether
the appeal was dismissed or allowed. Only certain directions
were given to the Secretary, Home Department and Director
General of Police to strictly comply with the observations that
D the Investigating Officers were to refer the blood stained articles
and blood samples of the victim/accused, as the case may be,
to the Medical College Hospital in the District or in the
neighbouring District which have Forensic Science Laboratory
to give report regarding the blood group. It was further directed
E that the Police Manual needs to be suitably amended to
incorporate the suggested procedure for mandatory compliance
in the protocol of investigation.
4. When it was point~d out to the learned Judge that there
was no result of the appeal, the matter was listed under the
F heading "For being spoken to" and on 31.3.2007 it was "f
observed that for the reasons and discussions made, the order
of conviction and sentence is confirmed and appeal is
dismissed. To say the least, the procedure adopted is clearly
not appropriate.
G
5. Coming to the facts of the case, the only thing that needs
to be observed is that the impugned judgment and order of the 'f "
High Court has one characteristic i.e. brevity. It has no other
t--
characteristic. It does not even refer to the various aspects and
briefly refers to the evidence of the witnesses.
H
8. VISHWANATH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 843
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

6. It needs no emphasis that the Appellate Court exercising A
appellate powers has not only to consider various points but
objectively and critically analyse the evidence. That has not been
done in the present case.
7. The case of the prosecution was that on 27.9.2000 at
about 8.30 P.M. the accused trespassed into the house and B
assaulted his sister-in-law PW1 with sickle and also assaulted
his mother PW2 with sickle.
8. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant
for offences punishable under Sections 307, 427 and 448 of c
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').
9. The accused pleaded innocence. However, on
consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court found the appellant
guilty of offence punishable under Sections 307, posed 427 and
448 IPC. Different sentences were imposed which were directed D
to run concurrently.
10. The accused-appellant preferred an appeal before the
High Court. As noted above, the High Court dismissed the
appeal. The only discussion about the merits of the case made
by the High Court is in the following words: E
"The case of the prosecution is that on 27 .9.2000 at 8.30
p.m. the accused trespassed into the house, assaulted
his sister-in-law PW-1 with sickle and also assaulted his
mother P.W.-2 with sickle. F
2. The wound certificate of P.W. 1 discloses hat an incised
wound on the right hand, leniar abrasion on the back of
trunk over the region of left scapula and leniar abrasion on
the right scapula region.
G
3. The wound certificate of P.W.2 discloses incised wound
on the occipital region of scalp and tenderness at the left
clavicle resulting in fracture of left clavicle and first
metatarsal bone.

4. P.W. 1...and 2 testified to the overt acts of the accused H
1
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A in causing injuries on them. P.W. 3 is an eye witness and ,..
sister of P.W:1. She supports the prosecution version. The
wound certificate and evidence of the doctor also
~
corroborate the version of P.Ws I and 2."
11. The observations on the procedure to be followed read
B as follows:
"In some of crimes, the blood stains on incriminating articles ;. ):.
serve as corroborative piece of evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused by establishing that the blood group
c of the stains tally with that· of blood group of the victim or
the accused as the case may be. In such cases, it is
necessary that 1.0. should send blood stained articles and
also the blood sample of the person with whom the blood
stains on the articles is to be connected. In my career as
a Judge in innumerable cases, I have come across that
D
the investigation done in this regard fa wholly incomplete.
The blood samples of the victim or the accused as the )'

case may be is not sent along with blood stained articles,
to prove the connectivity. I have also found that in the post
mortem report, there is no mention of blood group of the
E deceased. This type of lop sided investigation virtually
renders a valuable scientific corroborative evidence
incomplete and ineffective. I have also found that for
determination of the blood group of the stains, the articles
are sent to FSL at Bangalore for determination of the
F blood group. The District Hospital Laboratory is quite "i
competent to give medical opinion regarding the blood
group. The reference of the articles of FSL, Bangalore
does result in delay in placing complete evidence before
the Court. In most of the cases, at the time of evidence,
G the FSL reports are produced by the prosecution·. In order
to avoid delay, it is expedient that 1.0. should refer the
i ~
blood stained articles and blood samples of the victim/
accused as the case may be to the Medical College
hospitals in the district or in the neighbouring District which"
H have Forensic Science Laboratory to give report regardi.ng
B. VISHWANATH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 845
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

the blood group. A
The Home Secretary and Director General of Police should
issue necessary instructions to the Superintendent of
Police of the Districts and S.H.Os of the police stations
for strict compliance of the above observations regarding
blood stained articles. It is further directed that the Police B
manual be suitably amended to incorporate the suggested
..... procedure for mandatory compliance in the protocol of
investigation."
12. Next comes the order dated 31.3.2007. Same reads c
as follows:
"ORDERS ON FOR BEING SPOKEN TO
For the reasons and discussions made above, the order
of conviction and sentence is confirmed & appeal is dismissed."
D
14. The manner in which the appeal has been dealt with is
not a correct way to deal with the appeal. No serious attempt
appears to have been done by the High Court to appreciate the
rival stand and/or to analyse the evidence in its proper
perspective. Above being the situation, we set aside the E
impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to
the High Court for fresh consideration and disposal in
accordan·ce with law.
15. The appeals are allowed.
)' F
D.G. Appeals allowed.