Supreme Court of India

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusNARESH KUMAR @ KAKA & ORS.

Citation: 2009 INSC 590
Decided: 22 April 2009
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT

Holding

The High Court’s acquittal was set aside because it did not analyse the evidence in detail and arrived at abrupt conclusions, warranting remand for fresh consideration.

Summary

The Sessions Judge convicted the accused under IPC sections 302 read with 34 and 323 read with 34, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Himachal Pradesh High Court later acquitted the accused, concluding that the prosecution’s version was not credible. The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to analyse the evidence in detail and had reached abrupt conclusions, thereby improperly overturning the trial court’s judgment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing a speedy disposal. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused without a detailed analysis of the evidence.
Whether the appellate court can set aside a trial court’s conviction on the basis of such procedural infirmity.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 323, s. 34

Subjects

IPCSection 302Section 323Section 34appealacquittalconvictionevidence analysisappellate reviewHimachal Pradesh

Judgment

                       [2009] 6 S.C.R. 870


A               STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                v.
               NARESH KUMAR @ KAKA & ORS.
               (Criminal Appeal No.1202 of 2003)
                         APRIL 22, 2009
B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANGULY, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860: s.302 read with s.34, s.323 read with
C s.34 - Conviction under, by Trial Court - High Court ordered
  acquittal - On appeal, held : High Court did not analyse
  evidence in detail and came to abrupt conclusion about
  prosecution version being not credible - Matter remitted to
  High Court.
D
      Trial Court convicted the respondents-accused
  persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 323
  read with Section 34 IPC. High Court acquitted the
  respondents. State filed present appeal.
E      Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
    Court, the Court

       HELD: The High Court did not analyse the evidence
  in detail. It came to certain abrupt conclusions about the
F prosecution version being not credible. Since High Court
  was upsetting a judgment of the trial court which was
  rendered after analysing the evidence, the causal manner
  in which the appeal was disposed of, allowing the appeal
  filed by the respondent-accused persons was certainly
G not the proper course to be adopted. [Para 3) [871-E-G]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No.1202 of 2003.


H                             870
                   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARESH                   871
                           KUMAR @ KAKA & ORS .
    •           From the Judgment & Order dated 27.6.2002 of the High           A
            Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.
            563 of 2000.

                Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.

                 Sidhartha Luthara, Bina Madhavan, Mohamad Feroz, Tarun         B
            Satija (for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.) for the Respondent.

        ~       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
            to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh
                                                                                c
            High Court directing acquittal of the respondents who faced trial
            of alleged commission of offences punishable under Section
            302 read with Section 34 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian
            Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'the IPC').
                                                                                D
    ~
                2. Learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur had found the
            present respondent-accused persons guilty and had convicted
            each one of them and sentenced to imprisonment for life and
            to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation. Learned
            Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the co-accused Sunil             E
            Kumar.

                 3. We need not deal with the factual aspects in detail
•           because we find that the High Court has not analysed the
            evidence in detail. It has come to certain abrupt conclusions       F
            about the prosecution version being not credible. Since the
            High Court was upsetting a judgment of the Trial Court which
            has been rendered after analysing the evidence, the casual
            manner in which the appeal was disposed of allowing the
            appeal filed by the present respondent-accused persons was          G
            certainly not the proper course to be adopted.

                 4. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merit, we
            set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the
            High Court for fresh consideration.
                                                                                H
    872         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 6 S.C.R.


A       5. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the
    High Court to explore the possibility of disposing of the appeal
    as early as practicable and preferably by the end of September
    2009.

         6. After the acquittal when this Court granted leave, the
8
    respondents were not in custody and bailable warrants were
    issued. They will continue to be so till the disposal of the matter
    afresh by the High Court.

           7. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
c
    D.G.                                            Appeal allowed.




                                                                          •

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "IPC"Sign in to search