The Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court that had acquitted four individuals, citing that the decision was “cryptic and de hors any reasoning.” In the case of The State of Uttarakhand v. Anil & Ors., a bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan remanded the criminal appeals back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on the merits, emphasizing the duty of an appellate court to independently evaluate evidence before overturning a conviction.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a judgment of a Sessions Court, which in ST No.50/2003, had convicted and sentenced four accused individuals: Anil, Imran, Wasif, and Pappu. Anil and Imran were sentenced to life imprisonment, while Wasif and Pappu received a sentence of one year’s imprisonment plus a fine.
The four convicts challenged their conviction by filing separate appeals (Criminal Appeal No.95/2009, No.97/2009, and No.98/2009) before the High Court of Uttarakhand. In a common judgment dated May 2, 2013, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the trial court’s decision. Consequently, Anil and Imran were ordered to be released from jail, and Wasim and Pappu, who were on bail, were discharged from their bail bonds.
The State of Uttarakhand subsequently filed appeals before the Supreme Court, assailing the High Court’s order of acquittal.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Counsel for the appellant, the State of Uttarakhand, presented a two-fold argument. Firstly, it was contended that the High Court’s judgment was delivered “in a cryptic manner” and reversed a well-reasoned conviction by the Sessions Court without marshalling the facts or evidence on record. The State argued that the findings in the High Court’s judgment were “de hors any basis in the absence of there being a discussion of the facts and evidence on record.” On this ground alone, the State submitted that the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Secondly, the appellant argued that even on the merits of the case, the High Court was not justified in acquitting the accused and that the judgment of the Sessions Court should be restored.
Per contra, senior counsel and other lawyers representing the acquitted respondents vehemently opposed the State’s submissions. They argued that while the High Court’s judgment may have been “pithily” written, it was “not without substance.” They contended that “merely because the impugned judgment is short and not a lengthy one cannot make it an erroneous judgment as the reasoning is evident and there is a basis for the findings arrived at.” The respondents expressed their readiness to argue the matter on its merits before the Supreme Court to seek confirmation of their acquittal.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court bench, after considering the submissions, sided with the appellant’s first contention regarding the manner in which the High Court had disposed of the appeals. The Court observed that a High Court, when hearing a first appeal against conviction under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), exercises an appellate jurisdiction that requires an independent application of mind.
The judgment stated, “It is the duty of an appellate court to independently evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether such evidence is credible. Even if the evidence is deemed reliable, the High Court must further assess whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court emphasized the role of the first appellate court, noting that it “is akin to a Trial Court and must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution’s case is substantially true and that the guilt of the accused has been conclusively proven.”
Finding the High Court’s judgment deficient in this regard, the Supreme Court held that it failed to reflect a proper application of mind. The judgment noted, “We find that the High Court ought to have considered the evidence on record in light of the arguments advanced at the bar and thereafter ascertained whether the Sessions Court was justified in passing the judgment of conviction and imposing the sentence. The same being absent in the impugned judgment, for that sole reason, we set aside the same.”
The Supreme Court also pointed out that “the High Court has not even referred to the case number and the trial court from which the appeals had arisen.”
Citing its previous decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ambarish (2021) and Shakuntala Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the Court reiterated that the High Court is required to apply its mind to the entirety of the evidence on record.
Final Decision and Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand on the limited ground that the High Court’s judgment was cryptic and lacked reasoning. The Court clarified, “we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter,” leaving all contentions open for the parties to argue before the High Court.
The impugned judgment dated May 2, 2013, was set aside, and the criminal appeals were restored to the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand for a fresh hearing. The High Court was requested to dispose of the appeals “as expeditiously as possible,” given that the incident occurred in 2002.
Further, the Court directed that the accused Anil and Imran shall remain on bail but must appear before the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haldwani, to execute fresh bonds for a sum of Rs. 15,000 each with two like sureties.
