Supreme Court Revives Criminal Appeal and Remands High Court for Merits Hearing in Old Trial Matter

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard an appeal by the informant-appellant challenging a High Court order which had dismissed his appeal in limine against acquittal of an accused in connected proceedings. The issue related to whether the High Court could reject the appellant's second appeal without examining the trial evidence and the relevance of an acquittal in a separate Arms Act prosecution.

The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed that the appeal be revived and decided on merits. The Supreme Court observed that the matter "had to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced before the trial Court in the chargesheet(s) in question" and recorded that the High Court had not considered the relevancy of an acquittal in the separate Arms Act trial nor the deposition of eyewitnesses and investigating officer. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In our opinion, the present case had to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced before the trial Court in the chargesheet(s) in question. The judgment of acquittal for the offence under the 1959 Act would be based upon the evidence led in the said case. Reference, in this regard, as to the relevancy of judgments, can be made to Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This aspect has not been considered by the High Court. The failure of the investigation or prosecution is an aspect which the Court has to consider after weighing the depositions of the eye-witnesses." The Court also ordered that Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 573/2013 stand revived on the High Court file and directed expeditious hearing, fixing appearance on 24.03.2025.

Background

The dispute arose from an incident at a shop in which three intruders allegedly entered and one fired at the deceased, identified as Ishwar/Ishwer Chander. The appellant and informant, Sanjay Kumar, deposed as PW-8 and an eyewitness named Kalam deposed as PW-7. Other witnesses included Dinesh Prasad (PW-6), who was declared hostile, and the investigating officer Krishna Chandra Dubey (PW-10). Respondent No. 5, Megnath Koiri, was detained at the spot after suffering injuries and was arrested; he was later acquitted in a trial under the Arms Act and a ballistic report was not produced in the proceedings before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal in limine, noting that a Section 164 statement of respondent No. 5 was not produced and that the appellant’s version lacked corroboration by other staff members.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without examining the trial court record and the evidence in the chargesheets, and without applying principles of relevancy under Sections 40–44 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court observed that acquittal in a separate Arms Act trial could not be treated as conclusive without considering the evidence led in that trial and that the High Court should have weighed eye-witness depositions and the conduct of investigation before deciding the appeal. The Supreme Court therefore set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 and revived the appeal for fresh consideration on merits, directing that the High Court issue notice and decide the appeal expeditiously. The Court clarified that its observations were for disposal of the present appeal and that the High Court must "independently examine the material and the evidence on record and form its own opinion." The original trial and High Court records were directed to be returned immediately and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1398 of 2015 (2025 INSC 287) Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the order] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the order]