Supreme Court sets aside cryptic High Court acquittal, remands criminal appeals for fresh hearing

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan heard appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand challenging a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital that had allowed criminal appeals and acquitted the accused. The appeals arose from convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court in ST No.50/2003 arising out of an incident in 2002; the State challenged the High Court's short order dated 02.05.2013 which set aside convictions and sentences and granted acquittals and discharge of bonds.

The Court allowed the appeals on a limited ground, set aside the impugned High Court judgment and remanded the matters to the High Court for rehearing. The Supreme Court emphasised that when deciding appeals under Section 374(2) CrPC the High Court must independently apply its mind to the evidence and reasons; it rejected the State's contention that the High Court had no basis for its acquittal and found that the impugned order was "cryptic" and devoid of necessary reasoning. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We observe that while hearing appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the High Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction. There has to be an independent application of mind in deciding the criminal appeal against conviction. 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 High Court, though being an appellate Court, 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 while considering an appeal against conviction." The bench clarified that it expressed no view on the merits and left all contentions open for fresh consideration by the High Court.

Background The criminal proceedings originated from an incident in 2002 and resulted in conviction and sentence by the Sessions Court on 04.06.2009: accused Nos.1 and 2 (Anil and Imran) were sentenced to life imprisonment while accused Nos.3 and 4 (Wasim and Pappu) drew one year imprisonment and fine. The convicted persons appealed to the High Court, which, by a concise judgment dated 02.05.2013, allowed the appeals, acquitted Anil and Imran and discharged Wasim and Pappu from their bonds. The State of Uttarakhand filed these appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos.736-738 of 2015) contending that the High Court's order was cryptic and lacked application of mind and marshaling of facts and evidence, and that the High Court could not reverse the Sessions Court's findings without discussing the record. The respondents-accused contended that brevity did not render the High Court's decision perverse and invited the Supreme Court to uphold the acquittal on merits.

The Supreme Court agreed with the State on procedure: it found that the High Court had not independently considered and recorded evaluation of the evidence and had failed even to refer to the trial court and case number, rendering the order de hors the required reasoning. Describing the impugned judgment as "cryptic and de hors any reasoning in coming to the findings," the Court set it aside and remanded the appeals to the High Court to rehear them after issuing notice to all parties and affording both the State and accused an opportunity to make submissions. The Court directed that because the incident dated back to 2002 and the impugned order was of 2013, the High Court should dispose of the reheard appeals expeditiously. Meanwhile, the accused Anil and Imran were directed to remain on bail subject to executing fresh bonds of Rs.15,000 each with two like sureties and to comply with other conditions to be imposed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haldwani. The Supreme Court expressly refrained from adjudicating the merits and left all issues open for the High Court's fresh consideration.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.736-738/2015 Case Title: The State of Uttarakhand v. Anil & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR; Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR; Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR; Mr. A. Shirajudeen, Senior Advocate; Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR; Mrs. Vithika Garg, Advocate; Ms. Vidushi Garg, Advocate; Ms. Kiran Bala Agarwal, Advocate; Ms. Shaik Soni Ahamed, Advocate