ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The Appellant-Sri Uppa @ Manjunatha (A5) was tried along with six others i.e. Rama, Padma, Thimma and Lokesh (A1 to A4 respectively) Ramakrishna and Narayanaswamy (A6 and A7 respectively) in the court of Xth Additional City Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Sessions Case No. 461/04 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 05/01/2006 learned Sessions Judge acquitted A6 and A7 of all the offences. He acquitted A1 to A7 of the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He, however, held A1 to A5 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code A1 to A5 were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. For the offence punishable under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. For the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. For the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Appellant-A5 preferred an appeal in the High Court of Karnataka being Criminal Appeal No. 1341/2006. By the impugned order the High Court dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the instant appeal is filed.

4. The primary submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the High Court dismissed the appeal in a summary manner without dealing with any of the points urged before it. Counsel submitted that the cryptic order passed by the High Court sans any systematic assessment of evidence and without giving any proper reasons for the dismissal of the appeal deserves to be set aside. Counsel wanted to assail the impugned order on merits. However, since his first submission appeared to us to be sound, we did not call upon him to make further submissions. In fact, on 03/01/2013 after considering the fact that the High Court has disposed of the appeal by a very brief order, this Court had issued notice as to why the matter may not be remitted to the High Court for considering the Appellant's appeal in a proper way. This Court had expressed that the High Court's order does not show a proper consideration of all the materials on record.

5. The prosecution case appears to be that on 22/03/2004 deceased-Rama@Rami the son of the complainant (PW 1-Yashodamma) was at home. The Appellant along with other accused came to his house at 10.30 p.m. and asked Rama@Rami (the deceased) to accompany them. The deceased left the house with them. The complainant-PW 1 and her daughter PW 2-Latha saw the deceased going along with A1-Rama, A2-Padma, A3-Thimma and others. PW 1-Yashodamma and PW 2-Latha followed them. When they went to 10th Cross, Bovipalya, A1-Rama quarrelled with the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused attacked the deceased with weapons and ran away. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The murder was stated to have been committed because when A1-Rama was in jail the deceased did not visit him in jail. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The post-mortem notes were produced, which i