Gurram Chakravarthi Vs. State of A.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1430 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1430 of 2000)
Petitioner: Gurram Chakravarthi
Respondent: State of A.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1430 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1430 of 2000)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 31, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 113-B with Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Presumption under – Rebuttal – Conviction and sentence maintained by High Court – Accused leading defence evidence – Not considered. Held that appeal needs reconsideration by High Court. Appeal allowed & matter remitted back to consider if presumption has been rebutted.(Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. In this case appellant stands convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years besides a fine. The High Court has dismissed this appeal confirming the conviction and sentence.
4. We do not want to deal with all aspects of the contentions raised here elaborately. Suffice it to point that the High Court has missed to consider the evidences of four defence witnesses examined by the appellant. Learned Counsel submits that when a presumption has been created by law under Section 13(B) of the Evidence Act the accused has the obligation to rebut the presumption for which he has adduced evidence and if such evidence is not considered that would lead to miscarriage of justice. We are not aware whether the defence evidence had been highlighted before the High Court during arguments. Be that as it may, the High Court cannot sideline the defence evidence and the same has to be considered in order to ascertain whether the presumption had been rebutted by the appellant or not.
5. We think that the appeal in the High Court has to be considered afresh. In order to enable the High Court to do so, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case back to the High Court for disposal of the appeal afresh. In the meanwhile the appellant will remain on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial judge.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. In this case appellant stands convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years besides a fine. The High Court has dismissed this appeal confirming the conviction and sentence.
4. We do not want to deal with all aspects of the contentions raised here elaborately. Suffice it to point that the High Court has missed to consider the evidences of four defence witnesses examined by the appellant. Learned Counsel submits that when a presumption has been created by law under Section 13(B) of the Evidence Act the accused has the obligation to rebut the presumption for which he has adduced evidence and if such evidence is not considered that would lead to miscarriage of justice. We are not aware whether the defence evidence had been highlighted before the High Court during arguments. Be that as it may, the High Court cannot sideline the defence evidence and the same has to be considered in order to ascertain whether the presumption had been rebutted by the appellant or not.
5. We think that the appeal in the High Court has to be considered afresh. In order to enable the High Court to do so, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case back to the High Court for disposal of the appeal afresh. In the meanwhile the appellant will remain on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial judge.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
