SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of M.P.
Vs.
Sangram
Crl.A.No.1354 of 2005
(R.C.Lahoti CJI. and G.P.Mathur JJ.)
20.10.2005
G.P. Mathur, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the judgment and
order dated 25.7.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal
No.758 of 1997.
3. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 307 read with Section 34
IPC and each of them was awarded a sentence of 7 years R.I. and a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a further period 3 months. The High
Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the
accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. reduced the sentence to
the period already undergone which is 10 months and 5 days.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by
the High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence.
5. The High Court has not assigned any satisfactory reason for reducing
the sentence to less than one year.
6. That apart, the High Court has written a very short and cryptic judgment. To
say the least, the appeal has been disposed of in a most unsatisfactory manner
exhibiting complete non-application of mind. There is absolutely no
consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties.
7. Chapter XXIX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with APPEALS. Section 384
Cr.P.C. empowers the appellate Court to dismiss an appeal summarily if it
considers that there is no sufficient ground for interference. Section 385
Cr.P.C. gives the procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily and
Section 386 Cr.P.C. gives the powers of the appellate Court. In Amar Singh v.
Balwinder Singh the duty of the appellate Court while hearing a criminal
appeal in the light of the aforesaid provisions was explained and para 7 of the
report reads as under:
"7. The learned Sessions Judge after placing reliance on the testimony of
the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence on record was of the opinion that
the case of the prosecution was fully established. Surprisingly, the High Court
did not at all consider the testimony of the eye witnesses and completely
ignored the same. Section 384 Cr.P.C. empowers the Appellate Court to dismiss
the appeal summarily if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for
interference. Section 385 Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure for hearing appeal
not dismissed summarily and sub-section (2) thereof casts an obligation to send
for the records of the case and to hear the parties. Section 386 Cr.P.C. lays
down that after perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader
and the Public Prosecutor, the Appellate Court may, in an appeal from
conviction, reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the
accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction. It
is, therefore, mandatory for the Appellate Court to peruse the record which
will necessarily mean the statement of the witnesses. In a case based upon direct
eye-witness account, the testimony of the eye- witnesses is of paramount
importance and if the Appellate Court reverses the finding recorded by the
Trial Court and acquits the accused without considering or examining the
testimony of the eye-witnesses, it will be a clear infraction of Section 386
Cr.P.C. In Biswanath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors. it was held that
where the High Court acquitted the accused in appeal against conviction without
waiting for arrival of records from the Sessions Court and without perusing
evidence adduced by prosecution, there was a flagrant mis-carriage of justice
and the order of acquittal was liable to be set aside. It was further held that
the fact that the Public Prosecutor conceded that there was no evidence, was not
enough and the High Court had to satisfy itself upon perusal of the records
that there was no reliable and credible evidence to warrant the conviction of
the accused. In State of UP v. Sahai & Ors. it was observed that
where the High Court has not cared to examine the details of the intrinsic
merits of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and has rejected their evidence on
the general grounds, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court resulted
in a gross and substantial mis-carriage of justice so as to invoke extra-
ordinary jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution."
8. Since the judgment of the High Court is not in accordance with law, we have
no option but to set aside the same and to remit the matter back to the High Court
for a fresh consideration of the appeal. The appeal preferred by the State of
M.P. is accordingly allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court is set
aside and the appeal is remanded back to the High Court for a fresh hearing
after issuing notice to the accused respondent. It is made clear that we have
not gone into the merits of the case and the High Court shall reappraise and
examine the evidence on record and decide the appeal in accordance with law.