Appellate courts must independently evaluate evidence and provide clear reasoning for decisions, especially in cases affecting personal liberty.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.05.2024 passed in C.R.A. 111/2019 by the High Court of Calcutta vis-a-vis not only on the merits of the said judgment but also the approach of the High Court in considering the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant herein.

3. The appellant was charged with offences under Sections 376, 511, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Howrah by judgment dated 07.01.2019 convicted the appellant herein and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for a period of one month with regard to Section 354 of the IPC, and also, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC. The sentences are to run concurrently.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentences imposed by the Fast Track Court, the appellant herein preferred C.R.A. 111/2019. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appellant’s appeal and has sustained the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that on a reading of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that the High Court has not independently considered the evidence on record. As the High Court was considering an appeal against conviction passed by the Fast Track Court, the High Court ought to have considered the evidence on record independently and passed a judgment one way or the other in the appeal; however, instead a reading of the judgment would indicate that the High Court has simply reaffirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Fast Track Court in the absence of any independent reasoning given by the High Court.

6. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant pointedly drew our attention to the various portions of the judgment and contended that the judgment is erroneous owing to lack of any reasoning. He therefore, submitted that impugned judgment may be set aside and relief may be given to the appellant herein.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the High Court was after all sustaining the conviction and sentence imposed by the Fast Track Court. Therefore the High Court has considered whether the Fast Track Court was justified in passing a judgment of conviction and imposing the sentences. The High Court has considered the evidence on record and thereafter analysis of the evidence of the Fast Track Court and has rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no merit in this appeal and hence, the same may be dismissed.

8. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the impugned judgment and perused the material on record. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, we note that the judgment has been sub-divided into the following sub-topics, namely, the Appeal, the Prosecution, the Defence, the Evidence and Analysis of evidence which is based on the Fast Track Court’s findings in the matter and thereafter the appeal has been dismissed.

9. While hearing the appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) the High Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction. There shall be independent application of mind in deciding the criminal appeal against conviction. It is 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, must be convinced beyond all r