_, ISHV ARBHAI FULJIBHAI PA TNI v. STATE OF GUJARAT NOVEMBER 24, 1994 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 386–/ndian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302-Appeal against conviction-Conviction upheld- Evidence not discussed-Cryptic judgment conviction not sustainable. The appellant was found guilty of offence u/s 302 IPC and
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant holding that the trial court had rightly separated the case of the appellant from the case of the rest of the D accused who had been acquitted and that his conviction and sentence did not require interference. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction as upheld by the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court HE!-D : Since, the High Court was dealing with the appeal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, it was required to consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the argument raised at the bar. In this case none of the F arguments of the counsel for the appellant have been noticed, much less considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptic. On a plain requirement of justice, the High Court while dealing with the first appeal against conviction and sentence is expected to, howsoever, G briefly, depending upon the facts of the case, consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the submissions raised at the bar. If it fails to do so, it apparently fails in the discharge of one of its essential jurisdiction under its appellate powers. In view of the infirmities pointed out, the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained. [67 A-F]
·1 .CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No .. 832 · of 1994. From Judgment.and Order dated 14th December, 1993 of the High Court of Gujarat in CFiminal Appea~ No. ll92/93.
Vimal Dave for the Appellant. Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent. The following Order of the court was delivered: Lea~e granted The appellant alongwith three others was tried· by the teamed Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad and found guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC. He. was :sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant was also · found guilty of an offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act but no separate sentence was pronounced for the said offence. The .appellant E : · fil~d the first appeal against his conviction and sentence before the High Court .. By its judgment dated 14th December, 1993, the High·. Court dismissed .the appeal filed by the appellant holding inter a/ia that the trial court had rightly separ.ated the case. of the appellant from the case of the rest of the a~cused who had· been acquitted and that his conviction and sentence did not require interference. Aggrieved, the apl?ellant is before us through this appeal.
We have gone thr<?ugh the judgment of the High Court dated 14th December, 1993 and l!-fe pained to note that after narrating the prosecution case, the only discussion for the purpose of disposal of the appeal is contained in paragraph of the judgment which reads thus:
"For this purpose, the record was called for and after perusal of the original record, we are satisfied about the correctness . I. F: PATNI v. STATE OF GUJARAT· of the aforesaid conclusion. It is very much warranted by the A evidence
OQ record and · the learned Sessions Judge, . . . Ahnledabad, after tak.ing into consideration the entire material placed before him .and properly appreciating the · ar~uments advanced. on either · side ham he~d that the B accused-appellant is guilty. We, therefore, would not
interfere in this matter for the reasons stateq above and the matter is dismissed.'' Since; the High Court was dealing with the appeal in exercise of its C appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, it was required to consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the arguments raised at th~ bar. Let alone; any discussion of the evidence, we do not find that the High Cou,rt even cared .to notice the evidence led in the D case. None of the arguments· of the le!iflled counsel for the appellant have been noticed, much less considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptiC and we are at loss to understand as to what prevailed with the High Court to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant. On a plain· requirement- of justice, the High Court while dealing with a first appeal against E conviction and sentence.is expec~ed to, howsoever, briefly, depen~ing upon the facts of the case; consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the submissions raised at the bar. If it fails to do so, it apparently fails in the discharge of one of its essential jurisdiction under its appellate powers. In F view of the infirmities point~d out by us, the judgment under appeal cannot. be sustained. We, therefore, accept die appeal, set aside the judgment Of the.High Court and remand the case to the High Court for its fresh disppsal after hearing. the appeal on merits in acc~rdan~e with law, We -clarify that • we h~ve not gone into the merits of the case and no observation made by us G shall be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since, the appellant is in custody, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy.of H [1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R
this order. The appellant shall, however, continue to remain in custody till the disposal of the appeal by the High Court, unless admitted to bail by the High Court in the meanwhile.
A.G. Appeal allowed