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

RATHNAIAH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided
11 March 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 745 · 2008 INSC 342

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

Leave granted.

p. 746, margin D

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376 , 324 read with Section .34 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). While the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, one year and six months respectively for the three offences, other accused persons were sentenced to undergo one year and six months for each of the offence i.e. Section 324 read with Section 34 and Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC.

p. 746, margin D

3

They preferred appeal before the High Court which was numbered as Criminal Appeal no.553 of 2001. By the impugned order the conviction and sentence so far as the present appellant is concerned was confirmed while the sentences were reduced so far as the accused persons are concerned, but the fine amount was enhanced.

p. 746, margin G

4

The High Court by a p'ractically non-reasoned order dismissed the appeal. Th·e only conclusion fathomable from the impugned judgment is as follows: "3. In fact the prosecution and the trial Court both have overlooked the fact that A 1 had committed the acts of rape on two occasions which are distinct offences. A 1 should have been prosecuted separately for both the incidents of rape by filing separate charge sheet. In respect of second incident of rape, the prosecution has adduced evidence to prove the guilt. Accordingly, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused U/s. 376 IPC." ·

p. 747, margin A

5

Learned counsel for the appeilant submitted that the High Court while dealing with the appeal· has not even analysed the evidence and has also not recorded any findings on various submission on behalf of the appellants.

p. 747, margin C

6

In response, learned couns.el for the respondent-State submitted that though the judgment of the High Court does not indicate the reasons, but the evidence on record justifies the ultimate conclusion that the appeal was to be dismissed.

p. 747, margin D

7

The manner in which the appeal has been dealt with is not a correct way to deal with the appeal. No attempt appears to have been done by the High Court to appreciate the rival stand and to analyse the evidence in its proper perspective.

p. 747, margin E

8

Above being the position, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

p. 747, margin F

9

Appeal is allowed. S.K.S. Appeal allowed.

p. 747, margin F