REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.             OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5271 of 2008)

Prasad @ Hari Prasad Acharya …Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka …Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 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 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 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.  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

Hegde (PW-7) who told them to give a police complaint. On 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. 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.  

2

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the 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.  

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 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.  

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.

3

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  (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 emphasis on recording reasons is that if the

decision 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 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 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.

4

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. 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.  

…………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, February 09, 2009

5