Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1220 (AP)

Nitaram v. State of Maharashtra

2002-10-10

P.S.BRAHME, R.K.BATTA

body2002
Judgment R.K. Batta, J.— The appellant has been convicted on charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that the Trial Court has not discussed the evidence nor has given reasons in support of the finding except for enumerating as to what was stated by the learned Advocate for accused as also by learned APP and time and again has stated that what has been argued by learned APP, is right. According to learned Advocate for the appellant, there is no independent application of mind to the evidence and the judgment suffers from lack of reasoning. It is also pointed out by him that certain incriminating circumstances have not been put to the accused and in this connection our attention has been drawn to the testimony of Satyabhama (PW 8) who has deposed that she saw the accused assaulting doctor by Kikara, but the said incriminating circum-stance has not been put to the accused. Therefore, learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that the matter be remanded to the Trial Court so that all incriminating cir-cumstances are put to the accused as also a reasoned judgment is delivered. 3. Learned APP has also submitted before us that the Trial Court judgment suffers from lack of adequate reasoning and assessment of evidence of prosecution witnesses as also that important incriminating circumstance revealed in the evidence of Satyabhama (PW 8) has not been put to the accused. 4. It is now well settled that all incriminating circumstances of whatever nature which are to be used against the accused must be put to the accused so that accused is able to offer explanation in case he so desires. It is also settled that if the incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the same cannot be used or made basis of conviction. It goes without saying that the Trial Court is required to marshal all such evidence and come to the conclusions in support of the judgment. In the case under consideration, we do not find proper marshaling of evidence or even assessment or appreciation of evidence on record and the judgment also suffers from lack of proper and adequate reasoning. 5. It goes without saying that the Trial Court is required to marshal all such evidence and come to the conclusions in support of the judgment. In the case under consideration, we do not find proper marshaling of evidence or even assessment or appreciation of evidence on record and the judgment also suffers from lack of proper and adequate reasoning. 5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the matter be remanded to the Trial Court after setting aside the impugned judgment with direction to put additional incriminating circumstance against the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. For this purpose, it is not necessary to examine the accused afresh, but additional incriminating circumstances which have not been put to him, may be put to him by recording additional statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused shall, in case he so desires, be given an opportunity to lead evidence, if any. Thereafter on hearing Advocates for the parties, the Trial Court shall pass a reasoned judgment. 6. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara vide judgment dated 9-4-1998 in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 1997 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara for the purpose of putting additional questions on incriminating circum-stances to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and give opportunity to accused to lead defence evidence, if he so desires after which the Trial Court shall hear the Advocates for the parties and pass a reasoned judgment. The remand is limited in scope to the aforesaid extent. The Trial Court is directed to comply with the order of remand within a period of three months of the receipt of order of this Court which shall be expeditiously forwarded to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara. Appeal disposed of accordingly.