Supreme Court of India
PRASAD @ HARI PRASAD ACHARYAversusST ATE OF KARNATAKA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 128
- Decided
- 9 February 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A judgment that fails to record reasons is unsustainable and must be set aside.
Summary
The appellant was convicted under IPC sections 447, 376(2)(g), 506 read with 34 for house‑trespass, rape and criminal intimidation. The Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court was approached on the ground that the High Court’s order was practically non‑reasoned and contained no analysis of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that a judicial order must contain reasons, however brief, to indicate an application of mind; the absence of reasons renders the judgment unsustainable and defeats the right to reason under natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with proper reasons. The appeal was allowed and the case was sent back to the High Court.
Issues considered
- Whether a judgment that does not state reasons violates the principles of natural justice and is therefore unsustainable.
- Whether the conviction can be upheld in the absence of a reasoned judgment by the appellate court.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 376(2)(g), s. 447, s. 506
Subjects
natural justiceright to reasonnon‑reasoned judgmentcriminal appealappellate jurisdictionIPCconvictionremandjudicial review
Judgment
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1089
PRASAD@ HARi PRASAD ACHARYA A
v.
STATE OF KAR NATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 9, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Criminal Appeal - High Court upheld conviction by a
non-reasoned order - Justification of - Held: Not justified - c
High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief,
in its order indicative of an application of its mind - Absence
of reasons rendered the High Court's judgment unsustainable
- Hence, matter remitted to High Court - Principles of natural
• f
justice - Right to reason. D
'
The trial court convicted the accused-appellant under
ss.447, 376(2)(g) and 506 IPC rlw s.34 IPC. In appeal, High
Court upheld the conviction.
In appeal to this Court, the judgment passed by the E
High Court was challenged on the ground that it was
practically non-reasoned. It was contended that the High
Court did not analyze the evidence and arrived at abrupt
conclusions about the guilt of the accused.
F
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court
\
HELD: 1. A bare perusal of the High Court's
impugned judgment shows that the same is non-
G
reasoned and no basis or reasons have been indicated
' ~
by the High Court and there is not even analysis of the
evidence. Various infirmities pointed out by the accused
to throw doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution
1089 H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 1 S.C.R.
A evidence are not even referred to. [Para 7) [1092-D]
2. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set
forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative
of an application of its mind. The absence of reasons has
8
rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
[Para 8] [1092-E-F]
3. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The
emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision
C reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its
silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to
perform their appellate function or exercise the power of
judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.
Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound
D judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an
application of mind to the matter before court. Another
rationale is that the affected party can know why the
decision has gone against him. One of the salutary
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for
E the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The
"inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
[Para 9) [1092-H; 1093-A-C]
Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER
F 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974
ICR 120 (NIRC), referred to.
4. This Court is dismayed at the casual manner in
which the criminal appeal has been disposed of. In the
G circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and
the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh
consideration in accordance with law. [Para 10] [1093-D] ~ '
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
H No.242 of 2009.
PRASAD @ HARi PRASAD ACHARYA v. STATE OF 1091
KARNATAKA
.-~ From the Judgment and final Order dated 6.6.2006 of the A
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No.693
of 2005.
Nagendra Kumar Sahoo (A.C.) for the Appellant.
Anitha Shenoy for the Respondents. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
. ~
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment ofa learned c
Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court upholding the
conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under
Sections 447, 376(2)(g) and 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Various custodial
- . sentences were imposed on the appellant and one Sathish.
3. It is not necessary to refer to the factual aspects in detail
D
in view of the order proposed to be passed.
4. It was the prosecution case that on 30.4.2003 around
midnight both the accused persons went to the house of the E
victim, the prosecutrix (PW-1). They called out her husband. He
came out after lighting the kerosene lamp and found the
accused persons. The prosecutrix was compelled by the
.( accused persons to follow them to the jungle and she was
threatened that if she did not do so her hut would be set on fire. F
When she refused, they forcibly took her about 100 ft. away
from the hut and forcibly committed rape on her and threatened
not to disclose to anybody. Thereafter, they fled away. PW-2 and
PW-3 are the husband and the daughter of PW-1 respectively.
After the incident PWs 1 and 2 went and informed one Santosh G
Hegde (PW-7) who told them to give a police complaint. On
-)I, 1.5.2003 at about 9.00 p.m. First Information Report was
lodged. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination
and the same indicated that she was subjected to sexual
intercourse around 12 hours prior to the time of examination. H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A The trial Court found that the evidence of the prosecutrix and
the husband is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused persons
and accordingly convicted them. In appeal, the High court by
the impugned judgment upheld the conviction.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
8
appellants submitted that the High Court's judgment is
practically non-reasoned. The evidence has not been discussed
and abrupt conclusions have been arrived at about the guilt of
the accused.
C 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgments of the trial Court and the High
Court.
7. A bare perusal of the High Court's impugned judgment
0 shows that the same is non-reasoned and no basis or reasons
have been indicated by the High Court and there is not even ...
analysis of the evidence. Various infirmities pointed out by the
accused to throw doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution
evidence are not even referred to.
E 8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth
its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an
application of its mind. The absence of reasons has rendered
the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
F
9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning,
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER
1148, observed: "The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery
G (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was
observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice."
"Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker
to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion
arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The
H emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals
PRASAD @ HARi PRASAD ACHARYA v. STATE OF 1093
KARNATAKA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render A
it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate
furiction or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging
the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable
part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. B
Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the
decision has gone against him. One of the salutary
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the
order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable
face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or c
quasi-judicial performance.
10. We are dismayed at the casual manner in which the
criminal appeal has been disposed of. In the circumstances,
we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to
> ;
the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. D
As the matter is pending since long we request the High Court
to explore the possibility of early disposal of Criminal Appeal
No.693 of 2005.
11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. E
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
. )\
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "natural justice"Sign in to search