CHALLAPPA RAMASWAMI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short and the only point raised in this appeal by special leave pertains to the justification of the High Court in summarily dismissing in limine the appeal preferred by the appellant in that Court against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment by the Court of Session, Greater Bombay under Section 302 I. P. C.

(2.) We do not consider it necessary to enter into an exhaustive discussion of the prosecution story and the evidence led in its support. Suffice it to say that the trial Court relied in support of its order on two eye witnesses -one of whom is stated to be the uncle of the deceased. That Court also noticed that in the dying declaration by the deceased made to his uncle the name of the accused as his assailant was not mentioned. In a case like this, therefore, in our opinion, it was incumbent on the High Court to issue notice to the State and hear the appeal with the record before it and after evaluating the evidence, to record a speaking order so that this Court could also have before it the reasoning of the High Court for upholding the appellant's conviction The dismissal of the appeal by the High Court with one word "dismissed" has left us guessing about the line of reasoning which the High Court would have adopted after appropriate scrutiny of the material on the record. This Court has very recently in Govinda Kadtuji Kadam v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 1033 at page No. 1034, on a review of the case law reiterated the legal position in these words: