Holding

The High Court, as the first appellate court, failed to discharge its duty of appreciating evidence and providing reasons, so its order is set aside and the case remitted for fresh disposal.

Summary

The appellants were charged with offences under Sections 341, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC for an assault that injured three witnesses. The trial court acquitted them, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient. The High Court, acting as the first appellate court, partially set aside the acquittal for Sections 324 and 325 (read with 34) and imposed a fine, but gave no reasons or appreciation of the prosecution witnesses' testimony. The Supreme Court held that a first appellate court must examine the evidence and provide a reasoned order; the High Court’s failure to do so rendered its judgment untenable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.

Issues considered

Whether a first appellate court must consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses and give reasons when setting aside an acquittal.
Whether the High Court’s order of conviction without any reasoning is legally valid.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 324, s. 325, s. 326, s. 34, s. 341, s. 504, s. 506

Subjects

criminal appealappellate jurisdictionfirst appellate courtacquittalconvictionreasoned orderevidence appraisalIPC sectionsfinecompensation

Judgment

..'r
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 452

A MANJUNATH GANESH HEGDE & ORS.
~
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
_(Criminal Appeal No. 826 of 2002)

NOVEMBER 5, 2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Appeal - Criminal appeal - Power of First appellate i
Court/High Court- Exercise of- Scope ~ Trial court acquitted I

c accused of all charges - Acquittal set aside by High Court "·
for some of the -offences, without indicating reasons - Propriety
of - Held: Not proper - High Court while exercising appellate
power as first appellate court ought to have considered the
evidence of prosecution witnesses - Matter remitted to High
D Court.
...
Charges were framed against the appellants-
accused persons under ss.341, 324, 326, 504, 506, r.w.
. ,_____

'
s.34 IPC. Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons on
th~ ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case.
E High Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the
acquittal for offences punishable under ss.324 and 325,
IPC read with s. 34, IPC. Hence the instant appeal.

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
_...._
F Court, the Court ":;-

HELD: In a brief order, the High Court partly allowed
the appeal, but there was no reasoning or basis as to
what weighed with the High Court in confirming the order
of acquittal recorded in favour of the appellants-accused ....
G for certain offences and for setting aside the order of
acquittal and ordering conviction of the accused for l.
.__
offences punishable under ss. 324 and 325 read with s.34,
IPC. The High Court was exercising appellate power as
452
'
H
MANJUNATH GANESH HEGDE & ORS. v. STATE OF 453
KARNATAKA

y) the first appellate Court. It was, therefore, expected of the A
High Court to consider the evidence of Prosecution
Witnesses, particularly because they were eye-witnesses
as also injured witnesses. The High Court had failed to
discharge its duty of exercising appellate power as a
regular court of appeal. [Paras 13 and 14) [456-F-H; 457- B
A, B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 826 of 2002.

From the Judgment and final Order dated 6.2.2002 of the c
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 775
of 2001.

Kiran Suri for the Appellants.
D
A. Rohan Singh and Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondent.
-..,,-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-
accused against the order of conviction recorded by the High E
Court of Karnataka on February 06, 2002 in Criminal Appeal
No. 775 of 2001.

2. To appreciate the cas,e of the appellants, few relevant
facts may be noted.
F
3. It was the case of the prosecution that on January 04,
2000, at about 3.00 p.m., near Kallaimane Cross at village
Tatagar, Taluka Yellapur, appellant-accused attacked
complainant Gopal Sitaram Hegde with stones and wooden
sticks. They also attacked and caused injuries to Nagesh G
Ganapati Bandekar and Smt. Nagaveni. The accused persons
also administered threat to kill Gopal Hegde. All the accused
"I· thereby committed offences punishable under SecJions 341,
324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC). H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A . 4. Usual investigation was carried out by the police ~ ,
.authorities. ·Charge was framed against the accused. The
accused pleaded not guilty to the charge anq claimed to be
tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove the case _against the
8
accused exami"ned eight witnesses including three injured
witnesses, PW 1 Gopal Sitaram Hegde-complainant, PW 2
Nagesh Ganapati Bandekar, coolie of PW 1 and PW 3, Smt.
Nagaveni, wife of PW 1 Gopal-complainant. The prosecution i
C also examined two Doctors, PW 4 Doctor Sadanand Krishna
Kamat and PW 5 Dr. N.K. Katri.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yellapur
held that there was discrepancy between the medical evidence
and ocular evidence. He also held that there were contradictions
D in the depositions of eye-witnesses and in the circumstances,
it cannot be concluded that the prosecution was successful in
proving the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, by the judgment and order dated March 27, 2001,
he acquitted all the accused.
E
7. The State of Karnataka being aggrieved by the order
of acquittal preferred an appeal in the High Court of Karnataka
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The High Court heard
F the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor in favour of
the appeal as also the learned counsel representing the
respondent-accused. The High Court observed that so far as
the inconsistencies in the ocular evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3
were concerned, inconsistencies and contradictions were on
minor matters. The incident in. question was clearly established.
G The Court also held that injuries sustained by the prosecution
witnesses were established from medical certificates issued
by doctors as also from the testimony of doctors. The trial Court
was, therefore, not right in discarding the sworn testimonies of
the witnesses when they were doubly supported and
H corroborated from other evidence on record. It was also proved
MANJUNATH GANESH HEGDE & ORS. v. STATE OF 455
KARNATAKA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

that there was hostility between the parties and property A
disputes were going on in a Court of law. The relations between
the parties were very bitter and a long standing litigation was
pending in a civil Court. The High Court, in the circumstances,
held that the trial Court was wrong in totally acquitting the
accused. 8
8. The High Court, taking note of all the factors observed
that it was a case of extenuating circumstances, but not one of
"\' grant of benefit of doubt. Then without considering the evidence
at all, the High Court partly allowed the appeal. Observing that
the acquittal recorded by the trial Court for offences punishable
c
under Sections 341, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34,
IPC could _not be said to be ill-founded, the High Court upheld
the acquittal. It stated that the finding so far as the acquittal of
accused for those offences was concerned, did not require
interference. It, however, held that the acquittal for offences D
-r· punishable under Sections 324 and 325, IPC was not meritted
and the finding recorded by the trial Court so far as acquittal
under those two sections was concerned, was liable to be set
aside. The High Court, thus, partly allowed the appeal,
confirmed the acquittal of the accused for offences punishable E
under Sections 341, 326, 504, 506 read with section 34, IPC,
but set aside the acquittal recorded by the trial court and
convicted the accused fpr offences punishable under Sections
324 and 325, IPC read with Section 34, IPC.
.t'· F
9. It also observed that it did not propose to award any
substantive sentence directing the accused to undergo
imprisonment but they should pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each
meaning thereby that all the four accused will pay Rs.12,000/-
in aggregate. The said amount was ordered to be deposited
G
in the trial Court within a period of three months from the date
of the judgment. It also ordered that after recovery of fine,
't notices would be issued to PWs 1,2 and· 3 and directed the
Court to pay over the amount of Rs. 1,000/- each to PWs 2 and
3 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- to PW 1 by way of compensation.
H

1
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A The appeal was accordingly disposed of. The said order is
challenged in the present proceedings ..

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants-accused
B contended that there is no reasoning on the part of the High
Court as to why the accused were convicted. The High Court
merely repeated the findings recorded by the trial Court that the
.l
accused were acquitted for all the offences. There is no I
indication in the judgment of the High Court what weighed with
c the Court for confirming acquittal in respect of certain offences
as also setting aside an order of acquittal for offences
punishable under Sections 324 and 325 read with Section 34,
IPC. There is no appreciation of evidence either of PW1 Gopal-
complainant, PW 2 Nagesh or PW 3 Smt. Nagaveni. It is,
D therefore, impossible to imagine as to on what basis the High
Court convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections
:i-·
324 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC. It was, therefore,
submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order
passed by the High Court requires to be set aside.
E
12. The learned counsel for the respondent-State also
stated that there is no reasoning why the accused were
acquitted for certain offences with which they were charged
without appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

F ·'j
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our
opinion, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants is well-founded. In a brief order, the High Court partly
allowed the appeal, but there is no reasoning or basis as to
what weighed with the High Court in confirming the order of
G acquittal recorded in favour of the appellants-accused for certain
offences and for setting aside the order of acquittal and ordering
conviction of the accused for offences punishable under
Sections 324 and 325 read with Section 34, IPC. f

14. The High Court was exercising appellate power as the
H
MANJUNATH GANESH HEGDE & ORS. v. STATE OF 457
KARNATAKA [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

f--' first appellate Court. It was, therefore, expected of the High A
Court to consider the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses,
particularly because the three witnesses were eye-witnesses
as also injured witnesses. The High Court had failed to
discharge its duty of exercising appellate power as a regular
court of appeal. The order passed by the High Court, therefore, B
deserves to be set aside by remitting the matter for fresh
disposal in accordance with law.

15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be
allowed and is allowed accordingly and the matter is remitted C
to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

16. Before parting with the case, we may state that we may
not be understood to have expressed any opinion one way or
the other on the merits of the matter. As and when the High
Court will hear the matter, the Court will decide the case without D
being influenced by any observations made by us in this
judgment.

17. Ordered accordingly.

D.G. Appeal allowed. E