SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 683

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
IQBAL ABDUL SAMIYA MALEK - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1584 of 2012 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3583 of 2012) with Criminal Appeal No.1585 of 2012 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6260 of 2012)
Decided On : 01-10-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Duties of appellate court u/s 368 Cr. P.C. emphasized.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 368 - High Court simply disposing the appeal against conviction - Elaborate procedure laid down not followed - Not permissible - Matter remitted. (Para 3)

        AIR 2000 SC 361; (1996) 4 SCC 720 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        This is an appeal against order of High Court simply disposing of an appeal against conviction.

       Finding of the Court:

        Procedures laid down u/s 368 Cr. P.C. not followed.

       Result : Matter remitted.

       

ORDER

1. Heard both sides.

2. Leave granted.

3. It is the grievance of the appellants/accused that when they filed regular appeal before the High Court challenging the conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment, the High Court without going into all the materials including oral and documentary evidence disposed of their appeal affirming the judgment of the Trial Court. In view of the above contention, we have gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, after narrating the case of the prosecution and the defence as well as the order of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellants, without adverting to all the materials, the High Court has merely disposed of the appeal. The procedure followed by the High Court in a matter of this nature is not acceptable. Elaborate procedures have been prescribed under Section 386 of Crl.P.C. for disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court. It is the duty of an Appellate Court to look into the evidence adduced in the case arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even it can be relied upon then whether the prosecution can be said to have proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by Appellate Court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. Further appeal cannot be disposed of without examining records/merits (Vide Padam Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2000 SC 361 and Bani Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. 1996 (4) SCC, 720. The said recourse has not been followed by the High Court. In view of the same, without expressing anything on the merits of the claim of either party, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit it to the High Court. We request the High Court to restore the appeal on its file and dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a period of six months. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our attention to the fact that the appellants are in jail for a period of more than 11 years and seek for an order of bail from this Court. Since we are now remitting the matters to the High Court, the appellants are free to make such claim before the High Court. With the above observation, the appeals are disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top