Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GURRAM CHAKRAVARTHY versus STATE OF A.P.

Decided
28 November 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 732 · 2008 INSC 1356

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304(8) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The accused appellant faced trial for the alleged commission of the aforesaid offence. The learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam convicted the appellant as aforenoted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. By judgment dated 22.12.1998 the appeal filed before the High Court was dismissed. The matter was carried before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2000 which was disposed of by order dated 31st July, 2000. This court found that the m_anner of disposal of the appeal left much to be desired. It was pointed out by this co~rt that four defence · witnesses .were examined to rebut the presumption created under Section 113(8) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). This Court noted that there was no discussion of the various aspects including the acceptability of the· evid~nce of the DWs. That being so, the matter was remitted to the High Cour:t. It was clearly stated that the High Court cannot side line the defence version and the same has to be considered to see whether the presumption has been rebutted by the appellant. By the impugned judgment the High Court has again upheld the conviction and· the sentence imposed. Strangely, the High Court has not discussed the evidence in detail. It has merely referred to the evidence of the defence witnesses and come to the conclusion that the appeal was without merit. Certainly it was not in the manner of disposal of the appeal which this court had desired. We are conscious that the matter is pending since long and it would not be in the interest of the party if the matter is remitted to the High Court. But at the same time the inappropriate way of disposing the c:ippeal leading to the impugned judgment cannot be lost sight of and the same cannot be maintained.

pp. 733–734, margin E

2

Above being the position, we set _aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. As the matter is pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as early as practicable, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order. D.G. Appeal disposed of.

p. 734, margin E