The Supreme Court has recently held that while hearing criminal appeals against conviction under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the High Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction and there has to be an independent application of mind. The Apex Court further held that the High Court should, as an appellate Court, re-assess the facts, evidence on record and findings to arrive at a just conclusion in deciding whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused or not.

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the State of Uttarakhand against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court acquitting the respondents accused.

The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “We observe that while hearing appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the High Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction. There has to be an 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.”

“As the first appellate court, the High Court is expected to evaluate the evidence including the medical evidence, statement of the victim, statements of the witnesses and the defence version with due care. While the judgment need not be excessively lengthy, it must reflect a proper application of mind to crucial evidence. Albeit the High Court does not have the advantage to examine the witnesses directly, the High Court should, as an appellate Court, re-assess the facts, evidence on record and findings to arrive at a just conclusion in deciding whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused or not”, it added.

AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate A. Shirajudeen represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained the appellate jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC while deciding the criminal appeal against acquittal. “The High Court, though being an appellate Court, is akin to a Trial Court and must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution's case is substantially true and that the guilt of the accused has been conclusively proven while considering an appeal against conviction”, it stated.

“We are also cognizant of the large pendency of cases bombarding our courts. However, the same cannot come in the way of the Court’s solemn duty, particularly, when a person's liberty is at stake”, it further asserted.

Reference was also made to the judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ambarish, (2021), wherein it has been held that while deciding a criminal appeal on merits, the High Court is required to apply its mind to the entirety of the case, including the evidence on the record before arriving at its conclusion. The Bench held, “We find that the High Court ought to have considered the evidence on record in light of the arguments advanced at the bar and thereafter ascertained whether the Sessions Court was justified in passing the judgment of conviction and imposing the sentence. The same being absent in the impugned judgment, for that sole reason, we set aside the same.”

The Bench also highlighted that the High Court had not even referred to the case number and the trial court from which the appeals had arisen. “In the circumstances, while holding that the impugned judgment of the High Court is cryptic and de hors any reasoning in coming to the findings in paragraph 3 of the said judgment, we set aside the said judgment without expressing anything on the merits of the case”, it held. Thus, allowing the appeal and considering that the incident dates back to the year 2002, the Bench asked for an expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Cause Title: The State of Uttarakhand v. Anil & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1170)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Advocate Saakshi Singh Rawat

Respondent: Senior Advocate A. Shirajudeen, AOR Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Sangeeta Kumar, Advocates Vithika Garg, Vidushi Garg, AOR Manjeet Chawla, Advocates Kiran Bala Agarwal, Shaik Soni Ahamed

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice BV NagarathnaJustice R Mahadevan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.