The State Of Uttarakhand vs Anil

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.26 15:58:53 IST Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal Reason:

No.95/2009, Criminal Appeal No.97/2009 and Criminal Appeal

1 No.98/2009. Those appeals were preferred by the respondent-

accused(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