AMARJIT SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                        [2010] 5 S.C.R. 614


A                    AMARJIT SINGH & ORS.
                                 v.
                        STATE OF PUNJAB
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1394 of 2003)

                          APRIL 29, 2010
B
         [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.)

        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

c        s. 374 - Appeal from conviction - Dis.missed by High
    Court without referring to points raised in appeal and the
    evidence adduced - HELD: The observations made by the
    single Judge of the High Court, that nothing could be pointed
    out to show as to why he should re-appreciate the evidence,
0   is a palpably wrong observation in the light of s.374, which
    provides for the disposal and hearing of appeals - A perusal
    of High Court's order reveals that the points raised by
    appellants in the grounds of appeal and those which had been
    raised and decided by the trial court have not even been
E   alluded to and no reference has been made to the evidence
    produced by the parties, nor is there any discussion as to the
    process of reasoning leading to dismissal of the appeal -
    High Court being the final court of fact, was required to re-
    appraise the evidence and to take a view suitable to the case
    - This obligation has not been performed by High Court - The,
F   order of High Court is set aside and matter remitted to it for
    decision afresh in accordance with law - Penal Code, 1860
    - ss. 306 and 498-A.

        Rama and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2000) 4 SCC
G   571,' relied on.
                         Case Law Reference:
        (2000) 4 sec 571          relied on            para 5

H                               614
   AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB               615


    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal          A
No. 1394 of 2003.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 26.5.2003 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 473-SB of 2001.
                                                               B
    Altaf Ahmed, Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Gupta, Nikhil
Sharma for the Appellants.

    Kuldip Singh for the Respondent.
                                                               c
    The following Order of the Court was delivered

                           ORDER

     1. The appellant herein who was the husband of the
deceased was tried for an offence punishable under Sections D
306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
along with his brother and the brother's wife. The trial court in
the course of its judgment dated 17th April, 2001 convicted all
the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them to
various terms of imprisonment through an elaborate and E
comprehensive judgment. An appeal was thereafter taken to
the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the learned Single
Judge by his judgment dated 26th May, 2003 has dismissed
the appeal by observing:

          "In this case, perusal of the evidence shows that F
    Manjit Singh Appellant No. 3 and his wife Daljit Kaur
    Appellant No. 4 had been living separately in a house since
    1996. So harassment could be before that as admittedly
    the marriage took place about 10 years prior to the date
    of occurrence. Even though these two accused-appellants G
    may be residing in other house but they can come and
    harass the deceased by instigating their son. Amarjit
    Singh, appellant No. 1, the husband for demanding dowry.
    Moreover, learned counsel for the appellants could not give
    any plausible reason to re-appreciate the evidence and, H
    616       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A         therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court need not
          be interfered."

        2. This matter came up before this Court when notice was
    issued on 22nd September, 2003, with the following
8   observations:

                'The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that
       , the High Court sittJ11g as the court of first appeal on facts
         has not at all considered the evidence independently but
         has made passing reference to the evidence of the trial
c        court, which finding was challenged on subst~?tial grounds
         by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners' right of being
         heard by the First Appellate Court has been denied. Issue
         notice indicating that why the matter be not remanded
         back to the High Court.
D
                 Taking-into consideration that the petitioner No. 2 is
          an elderly person and suffering from various diseases;we
          enlarge her on bail upon her furnishing a personal bond in
          the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with
E         one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
          court."

        3. It is in this situation that the matter is before us after the ·
    grant of special leave.

F       4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
    gone through the record.

         5. We are of the opinion that the observations made by
    the learned Single Judge of the High Court, that nothing could
    be pointed out to show as to why he should re-appreciate the
G   evidence, is a palpably wrong observation in the light of Section
    374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for the
    disposal and hearing of appeals filed under the Code of
    Criminal Procedure. In Rama and Others v. State of Rajasthan
    (2000) 4 sec 571, it was observed as under:
H
   AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                 617


     "4. The impugned judgment has been chalienged on the A
     sole ground that the High Court has not disposed of the
     appeal in the manner postulated under law inasmuch as it
     does not to appear from the impugned judgment as to how
     many witnesses were examined on behalf of the
     prosecution and on what point. The High court has not even B •
     referred to any eviderice much less considered the same.
     In our view, it is a novel method of disposal of criminal
     appeal against conviction by simply saying that after
     reappreciation of the evidence and rescrutiny of the
     records, the Court did not find any error apparent in the c
     finding of the trial court even without reappraising the
     evidence. In our view, the procedure adopted by the High
     Court is unknown to law. It is well settled that in a criminal
     appeal, a duty is enjoined upon the appellate court to
     reappraise the evidence itself and it cannot proceed to· 0
     dispose of the appeal upon appraisal of evidence by the ·
     trial court alone especially when the appeal has been
     already admitted and placed for final hearing. Upholding
    ·such a procedure would amount to negation of valuable
     right of appeal of an accused, which cannot be permitted E
     under law. Thus, we are of the view that on this ground
     alone, the impugned order is fit to be set aside and the
     matter remitted to the High Court:'

     6. A perusal of the High Court's order, reveals that the
points raised by the appellants in the grounds of appeal and       F
those which had been raised and decided by the trial court
have not even been alluded to and no reference has been made
to the evidence produced by the parties or any discussion as
to the process of reasoning leading to the dismissal of the
appeal. The High Court being the final court of fact was           G
required to re-appraise the evidence and to take a view suitable
to the case. This obligation has not been performed by the High
Court.

     7. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order     H
   618      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 5 S.C.R.

A· dated 26th May, 2003, and remit the case to the High Court
   for decision .afresh in accordance with law.

       8. The parties are directed to appear before the Registrar,
  High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 12th
8 August,     2010 so that the matter can be expeditiously
  proceeded with as it is a very old one. We further clarify that
  as the appellants are already on bail they shall continue to be
  on bail till the disposal of the appeal by the High Court.

   R.P.                                          Appeal allowed.