STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. THADI NARAYANA:THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1961-7-6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
July 24,1961
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,THADI NARAYANA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,THADI NARAYANA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
R JANAKIRAMAN VS. STATE INSPECTOR POLICE CBI SPE MADRAS [LAWS(SC)-2006-1-63] [REFERRED TO]PRAKASH CHANDER VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1993-12-20] [REFERRED 7.]
RAVISHANKER KESHAVJI DAVE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1965-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. KOLI CHHAGAN JERAM [LAWS(GJH)-1966-10-1] [REFERRED]
NATWARLAL CHATRABHUJ SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1971-1-8] [REFERRED]
MAHADEV MOPTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1974-8-10] [CASES REFERRED]
MULCHANDBHAI BECHARBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJART [LAWS(GJH)-2007-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
GIRI RAVI VS. STATE OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2008-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A P VS. HYMAD PASHA [LAWS(APH)-2008-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNAKA VS. JAMEER PASHA [LAWS(KAR)-1988-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1967-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
DHIREN GHATA VS. STATE OF W B [LAWS(CAL)-2005-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2009-7-96] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1993-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
APPASAHEB VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2007-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAVIR SINGH RATHI VS. STATE THR C B I [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHAN MAHTO OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1966-2-22] [APPLIED]
KISHORE SURYAKANT THAKKAR VS. STATE OF GUJART [LAWS(GJH)-2006-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. DASTAGIRSAB [LAWS(KAR)-1981-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
VEERAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1987-10-25] [FOLLOWED ON]
PALEKANDA KARUMBAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1988-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
KUSTA BALSU KANDNEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1985-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2009-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASHAN VS. VASUDEVAN [LAWS(KER)-2010-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI KISAN RAUT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-183] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH ASHROBA GHULE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RENUKABAI ALIAS RINKU ALIAS RATAN [LAWS(BOM)-2004-9-207] [REFERRED TO]
NAGINA SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1990-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWARUP VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1972-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
MANGU VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1976-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1997-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
SAHODARI SONAR VS. KAILASH RAM TELI [LAWS(GAU)-1967-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. SALIM UDDIN [LAWS(GAU)-2013-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR DHUNICHAND SHARMA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-12-89] [REFERRED TO (1)]
JOSEOH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-8-161] [REFERRED TO]
Devi Singh VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1991-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
MADATHODIYIL CHEROOTTY PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1970-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
HYMAD PASHA VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-143] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SHARDA DEVI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1969-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH, SON OF NAWAB SINGH BY CASTE BANJARA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHERIA LODHA, POLICE STATION ROOPWAS, DISTRICT VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. NIRMALA DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2017-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AAHIR AATU DEHA [LAWS(GJH)-2017-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH S/O JIWARAM BRAMHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
SUBASH CHANDRA RAI, SON OF JEET BAHADUR RAI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2018-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-240] [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO TULSHIRAM MOHADKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-11-279] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Gajendragadkar, J. -
(1.)The short and interesting question which arises for our decision in the present appeal is in respect of the powers of the High Court in disposing of appeals under S. 423 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In dealing with an appeal preferred by a convicted person against the order of conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial Court can the High Court in exercise of its appellate powers under S. 423 (1) (b) reverse the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the appellant in respect of an offence which is directly not the subject matter of the appeal On this question there has been a difference of opinion amongst our High Courts, and it appears from reported decisions that in the same High Court sometimes conflicting views have been expressed on the point.
(2.)This question arises in this way. In the Court of Session, Visakhapatnam Division, the respondent Thadi Narayana was charged at the instance of the appellant the State of Andhra Pradesh with having committed offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against her was that on December 27, 1956, at about night-meal time at Gangacholapenta she committed the murder of a minor girl K. Sriramulamma by stabbing her with a knife and thus rendered herself liable to be punished under S. 302. It was also alleged against her that at the aforesaid time and place and in the course of the same transaction she had robbed the said victim of her four pairs of gold Konakammulu and a pair of gold Alakalu and thereby committed the offence of robbery under S. 392. On April 16, 1957, the learned trial judge found that the charges against the respondent under Ss. 302 and 392 had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and so he acquitted her of the said offences. He, however, held that the respondent was shown to have committed an offence under S. 411 and so he convicted her of the said offence and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
(3.)Against the order of conviction and sentence thus imposed on her the respondent preferred a jail appeal in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This appeal was heard by Sanjeeva Rao Naidu, J. By his judgment delivered on July 22,1958, the learned Judge expressed his conclusion that he was satisfied that gross miscarriage of justice had resulted in the case "and the only way to rectify this is to order the retrial of the case on the original charges under Ss. 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code so that the accused may be properly tried thereon and, it found guilty, convicted for the offence or offences proved by evidence to have been committed by her." In the result the conviction and sentence of the accused under S. 411 were set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for retrial on the charges already framed against her.
(2.)This question arises in this way. In the Court of Session, Visakhapatnam Division, the respondent Thadi Narayana was charged at the instance of the appellant the State of Andhra Pradesh with having committed offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against her was that on December 27, 1956, at about night-meal time at Gangacholapenta she committed the murder of a minor girl K. Sriramulamma by stabbing her with a knife and thus rendered herself liable to be punished under S. 302. It was also alleged against her that at the aforesaid time and place and in the course of the same transaction she had robbed the said victim of her four pairs of gold Konakammulu and a pair of gold Alakalu and thereby committed the offence of robbery under S. 392. On April 16, 1957, the learned trial judge found that the charges against the respondent under Ss. 302 and 392 had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and so he acquitted her of the said offences. He, however, held that the respondent was shown to have committed an offence under S. 411 and so he convicted her of the said offence and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
(3.)Against the order of conviction and sentence thus imposed on her the respondent preferred a jail appeal in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This appeal was heard by Sanjeeva Rao Naidu, J. By his judgment delivered on July 22,1958, the learned Judge expressed his conclusion that he was satisfied that gross miscarriage of justice had resulted in the case "and the only way to rectify this is to order the retrial of the case on the original charges under Ss. 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code so that the accused may be properly tried thereon and, it found guilty, convicted for the offence or offences proved by evidence to have been committed by her." In the result the conviction and sentence of the accused under S. 411 were set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for retrial on the charges already framed against her.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.