Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s disposal was improper for failing to examine the defence evidence and remitted the case for fresh consideration.

Summary

Gurram Chakravarthy was convicted under Section 304(8) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had not examined the defence witnesses who were called to rebut the presumption created under Section 113(8) of the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s disposal of the appeal was not in the manner desired, as it failed to discuss the admissibility and credibility of the defence evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing a detailed appraisal of the defence version and a prompt disposal within six months. The appeal was thus disposed of by remand to the High Court.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred by not discussing the defence witnesses' evidence that sought to rebut the presumption under Section 113(8) of the Evidence Act.
Whether the manner of disposal of the appeal by the High Court was appropriate under appellate procedure.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113(8)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304(8)

Subjects

Criminal appealConvictionPresumption under Evidence ActDefence witnessesAppellate procedureRemand

Judgment

...
'[2008] 16 S.C.R. 732 ,..
A GURRAM CHAKRAVARTHY ~
v.
STATE OF A.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 2002)

NOVEMBER 28, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.] ...
~
Appeal: Criminal appeal - Manner of disposal -
c Conviction by Trial Court - Affirmed by High Court - On
appeal, Supreme Court remitted the matter to High Court
observing that the defence witnesses were examined but no
discussion on various aspects including the acceptability of
their evidence was recorded - High Court again upheld the
D conviction without discussing the evidence in detail - On
appeal, held: The disposal of the appeal by High Court was
hot in the desirable manner - Inappropriate way of disposing
of the appeal leading to impugned judgment cannot be lost "'
sight of and same cannot be maintained - Matter remitted to 'f
E High Court.
The appellant was convicted under s.3048 IPC. On
appeal, High Court upheld the conviction. When the
matter came before this Court, it was remitted to High
Court with the observation that four defence witnesses
F were examined to rebut the presumption under s.1138 of ,
the Evidence Act, 1872, but there was no discussion on
'.>--
various aspects including the acceptability of evidence

G
of those. witnesses. It was clearly stated that the High
Court could not sideline the defence version.
The High Court again upheld the conviction and
the sentence imposed without discussing the evidence ....
-
in detail. It merely referred to the evidence of defence +
witnesses and. came to conclusion that the appeal was
~
H 732
*·
GURRAM CHAKRAVARTHYv. STATE OF A.P. 733

without merit. Hence the instant appeal. A
"' Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
High Court, the Court

HELD: The disposal of the appeal was not in the
manner which this court had desired. The inappropriate B

. way of disposing of the appeal leading to the impugned
judgment cannot be lost sight of and the same cannot be
)-- maintained. As the matter is pending for long, the High
Court is requested to dispose of the appeal as early as
practicable preferably within six months of receipt of the c
order. [Paras 1 and 2] [734-E-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 133 of 2002.
D
From the final Judgment dated 23.2.2001 of the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal

- ~'t'
Appeal No. 11 of 1996.

Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Ramesh and Y. Vismai for the
Appellant. E

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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(8) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The accused appellant faced
F

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 G
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 H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. ~

A court found that the m_anner of disposal of the appeal left much .,
to be desired. It was pointed out by this co~rt that four defence
· witnesses .were examined to rebut the presumption created
under Section 113(8) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short
the 'Evidence Act'). This Court noted that there was no
B discussion of the various aspects including the acceptability of
the· evid~nce of the DWs. That being so, the matter was ...
remitted to the High Cour:t. 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
c 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
D
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 disposing the i-
c:ippeal leading to the impugned judgment cannot be lost sight
E 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
F the High Court to dispose of the appeal as early as practicable,
preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order. )..

D.G. Appeal disposed of.