2025 INSC 1170 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.736-738/2015
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ANIL & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1
and 2. On perusal of the Office Report, it is noted that
learned counsel, Mustaq Ahmed for respondent No.1 has since
passed away. There is no alternative arrangement made. As far
as respondent No.2 - Mohd. Imaran is concerned, there is no
representation on his behalf. In the circumstances, we request
learned counsel, Smt. Sangeeta Kumar and Smt. Manjeet Chawla
to serve as Amicis Curiae for respondent Nos.1 and 2
respectively in these appeals since they are appearing on
behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee presently
representing respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively.
2. The State of Uttarakhand has filed these appeals assailing
the Common Judgment dated 02.05.2013 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal
No.95/2009, Criminal Appeal No.97/2009 and Criminal Appeal
1
No.98/2009. Those appeals were preferred by the respondentaccused(s), Anil, Imran, Wasif and Pappu. Vide the impugned
judgment, the High Court has allowed the criminal appeals and
acquitted Anil and Imran who were in jail, and ordered them to
be released. The accused Wasim and Pappu who are on bail were
discharged from their bail bonds and sureties. By the
impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the judgment
of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment in the case of
accused Nos.1 and 2 and sentence of one year imprisonment plus
fine in the case of accused Nos.3 and 4 imposed by judgment
dated 04.06.2009 in ST No.50/2003.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State of
Uttarakhand and learned senior counsel and learned counsel for
the respondent-accused(s).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State made a two-fold
submission: firstly, she contended that even without going into
the merits of the case, the manner and tenor of the judgment
may be considered; that this is a judgment of a High Court
which was considering a first appeal against a judgment and
order of conviction against which appeals were filed by
respondents - accused; that in a cryptic manner, the judgment
has been delivered by the High Court acquitting the respondents
– accused. That this Court in a catena of cases has observed
that even if a judgment confirming the judgment of a Sessions
2
Court is to be rendered by the High Court, thereby dismissing
the first appeal which has been preferred under Section 374 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”), the
appeal would have to be considered based on the evidence on
record and thereafter possibly the High Court could dismiss
such an appeal. But here is a case where the High Court has
reversed the judgment of the Sessions Court inasmuch as the
judgment and sentence of life imprisonment has been set aside
and a complete acquittal given to the respondents - accused
without there being any reasons and marshalling of the facts
and the evidence on record. In this regard, she drew our
attention to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment and
submitted that the findings in paragraph 3 of the impugned
judgment are de hors any basis in the absence of there being a
discussion of the facts and evidence on record. In the
circumstances, she submitted that if this Court is so inclined,
may consider remanding of the matter without going into the
merits of the case.
5. The second submission of learned counsel for the appellant
is, in the event this Court is not inclined to accept the first
submission, then the appeal can be taken up on merits. Learned
counsel submitted that even on merits, the High Court could not
have given a judgment of acquittal by reversing the judgment of
the Sessions Court. She therefore submitted that the impugned
3
judgment may be set aside and the judgment of the Sessions
Court may be restored.
6. Per contra, learned senior counsel and learned counsel
appearing for the respondents-accused who have been acquitted,
vehemently contended that there is no merit in the submissions
made by the appellant’s counsel. They drew our attention to the
fact that the High Court may have given the judgment pithily
but it is not without substance. 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. In the circumstances, this
Court may not accept the first contention of the appellant and
hence, they contended that they are ready to argue the matter
on merits so that this Court could confirm the judgment of
acquittal passed by the High Court.
7. In view of the nature of grievances expressed by the
appellant-State and the tenor of the submissions advanced, it
is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case giving rise
to these appeals in detail.
8. 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
4
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.
9. As the first appellate court, the High Court is expected
to evaluate the evidence including the medical evidence,
statement of the victim, statements of the witnesses and the
defence version with due care. While the judgment need not be
excessively lengthy, it must reflect a proper application of
mind to crucial evidence. Albeit the High Court does not have
the advantage to examine the witnesses directly, the High
Court should, as an appellate Court, re-assess the facts,
evidence on record and findings to arrive at a just conclusion
in deciding whether the Trial Court was justified in
convicting the accused or not. We are also cognizant of the
large pendency of cases bombarding our courts. However, the
same cannot come in the way of the Court’s solemn duty,
particularly, when a person's liberty is at stake.
5
10. This Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ambarish,
(2021) 16 SCC 371 held that while deciding a criminal appeal
on merits, the High Court is required to apply its mind to the
entirety of the case, including the evidence on the record
before arriving at its conclusion. In this regard, we may also
refer to the orders passed by this Court in Shakuntala Shukla
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 20 SCC 818 and State Bank
of India vs. Ajay Kumar Sood, (2023) 7 SCC 282.
11. 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. In fact, the High
Court has not even referred to the case number and the trial
court from which the appeals had arisen.
12. We therefore find that the first contention advanced by
the learned counsel for the appellant-State has to be accepted
for the reason that the respondents-accused in these appeals
respectively would also have another opportunity in the appeals
that they had filed before the High Court. In the
circumstances, while holding that the impugned judgment of the
High Court is cryptic and de hors any reasoning in coming to
the findings in paragraph 3 of the said judgment, we set aside
6
the said judgment without expressing anything on the merits of
the case.
13. We allow the appeals filed on the aforesaid limited
ground.
14. The matters are remanded to the High Court of Uttarakhand
at Nainital.
15. The High Court is requested to rehear the appeals filed by
the respondents/accused respectively in these appeals by also
giving an opportunity to the appellant-State herein to make its
submission in the said appeals as well as the accused to make
this submission in the matter.
16. We once again clarify that we have not made any
observations on the merits of the matter.
17. All contentions on both sides are left open to be
advanced before the High Court.
18. Since the incident is of the year 2002 and the impugned
judgment is dated 02.05.2013 and we are remanding the matter to
the High Court, we request the High Court to dispose of the
appeal as expeditiously as possible.
19. Since we have set aside the judgment dated 02.05.2013
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal
Appeal Nos.95 of 1997; 97 of 1997 and 98 of 1997, the
7
accused Anil and Imran shall remain on bail. However, the said
accused shall appear before the concerned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Haldwani and execute fresh bonds for a sum
of Rs.15,000/- each with two like sureties each and subject to
other conditions imposed by the concerned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Haldwani.
20. In view of the above, the judgment dated 02.05.2013 passed
in Criminal Appeal No.95/2009, Criminal Appeal No.97/2009 and
Criminal Appeal No.98/2009 are set aside, the matters are
remanded to the High Court of Uttarakhand by restoring the
aforesaid appeals on the file of the said High Court. The High
Court is requested to rehear these appeals in order to decide
upon the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and sentence
imposed by the Sessions Court and to dispose of the appeals in
accordance with law.
21. The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
22. It is needless to observe that the High Court shall issue
notice to all the parties and thereafter shall rehear the
appeals upon service of notice to the respondents.
8
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………,J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
………………………………………………………,J.
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 18, 2025.
9
ITEM NO.124 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 736-738/2015
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ANIL & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 18-09-2025 These appeals were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR
Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR
Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR
Mrs. Vithika Garg, Adv.
Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.
Mr. A. Shirajudeen, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR
Ms. Kiran Bala Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Shaik Soni Ahamed, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in terms of the
signed non-reportable judgment which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
10