REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.133 OF 2002

Gurram Chakravarthy …..Appellant

Versus

State of A.P. …. Respondent  

J U D G M E N T  

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(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(in  short  the  ‘IPC’).   The  accused  appellant  faced  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 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 court found that the manner of disposal of the

appeal left much to be desired.  It was pointed out by this court that four

defence witnesses were examined to rebut  the presumption created under

Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the ‘Evidence

Act’).  This Court noted that there was no discussion of the various aspects

including the acceptability of the evidence of the DWs.  That being so, the

matter was remitted to the High Court.  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  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 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

2

disposing the appeal leading to the impugned judgment cannot be lost sight

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 the High Court to dispose of the appeal as

early as practicable, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of

the order.

……………………………….…J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…………………………………..J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, November 28, 2008

3