An appellate court must provide a reasoned judgment based on thorough evaluation of evidence, ensuring that acquittals are justified beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

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 Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal No.95/2009, Criminal Appeal No.97/2009 and Criminal Appeal 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 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 eve