REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5854 of 2008)

Thanga Prakash  …Appellant

Vs.

State of Karnataka         ... Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.  

3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 12.7.2006

in Criminal Appeal No.569 of 2001 by the Karnataka High Court. Though,

various points were urged in support of the appeal, we find that it can be

disposed of by a single point.  The trial Court, in the penultimate paragraph

observed as follows:

“Therefore, I hold that A2, A3 and A7 are guilty

of the  offence punishable  under Part-II  of Section 304

IPC read with Section 34 IPC.  Accused Nos. 1 and 4 to

6 are entitled for acquittal.”

(Underlined for emphasis)

4. But, strangely, in the next paragraph, it was observed as follows:

“In  the  result,  A1  to  A7  are  acquitted  of  the

offences   punishable  under  Sections  148  IPC,  Section

323 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 307 read with

Section 149 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149

IPC, with which they are charged.  However, A1, A2, A3

and A7 are convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2

The bail bonds of A4 and A6 stands cancelled.  A-

5 who is in judicial custody shall be released forthwith if

not required in any other case.”

(Underlined for emphasis)  

5. It has to be noted that in the judgment of the Trial Court, it was inter

alia observed as follows:

“The  evidence  of  PW-1  that  A1  and  A4  also

assaulted  him with the chopper  on his  back cannot  be

accepted because of the reason that if both the accused

had  assaulted  there  should  have  been  more  than  one

wound on his back, but, as per medical evidence, there is

only one wound.  The medical  evidence does not  lend

corroboration  to  the  evidence  of  PW-1.   PW-1  was

present  with A2 and A7 from the beginning and when

they reached near the scene of offence PW1 had seen A1,

A4 and A6 at that place.  PW1 has not stated that A1 and

A4 were armed with chopper at that time.”    

3

(Underlined for emphasis)  

6. The aforesaid confusion and contradictory findings by the Trial Court

have not been considered by the High Court which disposed of the appeal,

by practically, in one paragraph after noticing the factual scenario indicated

in the trial court’s judgment.  We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of

the High Court and remit the matter to it for a fresh disposal in accordance

with law.  We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the case.

7. It is to be noted that the present appeal is filed by accused No.1.  Our

order remitting the matter to the High Court shall be restricted only so far as

he is concerned.      

8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.   

  ………………………………

…..J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

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

New Delhi, November 26, 2008                    

4