http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  471 of 2008

PETITIONER: Rathnaiah

RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.     471         OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2587 of 2007)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing  the appeal filed by the appellant.  The appellant faced trial for  alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376 ,  324 read with Section 34 and 342 read with Section 34 of the  Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ’IPC’).    While the appellant  was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, one year and six  months respectively for the three offences, other accused  persons were sentenced to undergo one year and six months  for each of the offence i.e. Section 324 read with Section 34  and Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC.     3.      They preferred appeal before the High Court which was  numbered as Criminal Appeal no.553 of 2001.  By the  impugned order the conviction and sentence so far as the  present appellant is concerned was confirmed while the  sentences were reduced so far as the accused persons are  concerned, but the fine amount was enhanced.            4.      The High Court by a practically non-reasoned order  dismissed the appeal.  The only conclusion fathomable from  the impugned judgment is as follows: "3.     In fact the prosecution and the trial  Court both have overlooked the fact that A1  had committed the acts of rape on two  occasions which are distinct offences.  A1  should have been prosecuted separately for  both the incidents of rape by filing separate  charge sheet.  In respect of second incident of  rape, the prosecution has adduced evidence to  prove the guilt.  Accordingly, the trial Court  rightly convicted the accused U/s. 376 IPC."          5.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  High Court while dealing with the appeal has not even  analysed the evidence and has also not recorded any findings  on various submission on behalf of the appellants.             6.      In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

submitted that though the judgment of the High Court does  not indicate the reasons, but the evidence on record justifies  the ultimate conclusion that the appeal was to be dismissed.     7.      The manner in which the appeal has been dealt with is  not a correct way to deal with the appeal.  No attempt appears  to have been done by the High Court to appreciate the rival  stand and to analyse the evidence in its proper perspective.      8.      Above being the position, we set aside the impugned  order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh  disposal in accordance with law.          9.      Appeal is allowed.