Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 34

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Geeta Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2022
Decided On : 18-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. V. George, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Amol Chitravanshi, Adv. Mr. Md. Shahid Anwar, AOR Mr. Amir Naseem, Adv. Mr. Aryan P. Nanda, Adv. Mr. Naeem Ilyas, Adv. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. Firoz Shaikh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Once appeal is entertained against order of acquittal, High Court is entitled to reappreciate entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion.
(2) Against an order of acquittal passed by Trial Court High Court would be justified on re-appreciation of entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion that acquittal is perverse and manifestly erroneous.

Headnote:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 354, 504 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Attempt to outrage modesty, intentional insult and criminal intimidation – Appeal against acquittal – High Court has only made general observations on deposition of witness examined – However, there is no reappreciation of entire evidence in detail which exercise ought to have been made by High Court while dealing with judgment and order of acquittal – This is not the manner in which High Court should have dealt with appeal against an order of acquittal which as such is a first appeal against order of acquittal – Once appeal is entertained against order of acquittal, High Court is entitled to reappreciate entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion – Ordinarily, High Court would give due importance to opinion of Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after a proper appreciation of evidence – Against an order of acquittal passed by Trial Court High Court would be justified on reappreciation of entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion that acquittal is perverse and manifestly erroneous – Decision of High Court is totally erroneous as it has ignored settled legal position – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court in Criminal Appeal quashed and set aside – Appeal before High Court ordered to be restored to its original file – High Court to decide and dispose of appeal in accordance with law and on its own merits. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2019 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the victim of offence, which was filed against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 passed by Special Court, acquitting the respondent accused under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the victim – original appellant has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
High Court ought to have re-appreciated entire evidence on record as it was dealing with a first appeal. Being the first appellate court, the High Court was required to reappreciate entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2019 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the victim of the offence, which was filed against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Special Court, acquitting the respondent accused under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the victim – original appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the learned Special Court/Trial Court convicted respondent Nos. 2 to 4 – accused for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, acquitted them for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Court acquitting the respondents – accused for the aforesaid offences, the victim preferred an appeal before the High Court by way of Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2019 and by the impugned one page/paragraph judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal, which is the subject matter of the present appeal before this Court.

3. We have heard Shri T.V. George, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri Adarsh Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State – Respondent No.1 and Shri Shahid Anwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 – accused.

4. Number of submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. However, for the reasons stated here-in-below we propose to remand the matter to the High Court and hence we refrain from dealing with any of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties on merits as any observation made by this Court may affect either the prosecution or the defence.

5. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the victim – appellant. As already noted, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as such is one page/paragraph order. After observing in paragraph 3 that “I have gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court carefully” thereafter without further elaborate re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record the High Court has dismissed the appeal by observing in paragraph 4 as under :

“4. Trial Court has considered the statement of P.W.-2 carefully and has found that the testimony of P.W.-2 cannot be relied on for offence under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) S.C./S.T. Act. There is no corroboration to the testimony of P.W.2 when the trial Court itself has found the testimony of P.W.2 doubtful. There is no ground to interfere with the well considered judgment of trial Court and, therefore, I find this appeal without merit and substance. The appeal is thus, dismissed.”

6. We are constrained to observe that this is not the manner in which the High Court should have dealt with the appeal against an order of acquittal which as such is a first appeal against the order of acquittal. The High Court has only made general observations on the deposition of the witness examined. However, there is no re-appreciation of the entire evidence in detail which exercise ought to have been made by the High Court while dealing with the judgment and order of acquittal. The High Court ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record as it was dealing with a first appeal. Being the first appellate court, the High Court was required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court. How to