AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. v.

STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1394 of 2003)

APRIL 29, 2010 [Harjit Singh Bedi and C.K. Prasad, JJ.]

2010(5) SCR 614

The following Order of the Court was delivered

O R D E R

1. The appellant herein who was the husband of the deceased was tried for an  

offence punishable under Sections 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  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 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 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,  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 observations:

“The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the High Court sitting  

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 court,  

which  finding  was  challenged  on  substantial  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.

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 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.

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 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 SCC 571, it was observed as under:

“4.  The impugned judgment  has been challenged on the 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 referred to any evidence 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.