LexAMAR SARDAR versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1267 : 2024 INSC 1040 Amar Sardar v. The State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal No. 5234 of 2024) 12 December 2024 [B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.374 – Whether High Court considered the evidence on record independently thereby sustaining the conviction granted by the Fast Track Court: Held: While hearing the appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction – It is the duty of an appellate court to independently evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether such evidence is credible – High Court must further assess whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, even if the evidence is deemed reliable – The High Court 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 – Mere concurrence with the findings of the Trial Court is insufficient unless supported by a well-reasoned indepenent justification – 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’s version with due care – Judgment must reflect a proper application of mind to crucial evidence – The analysis of the evidence by the High Court is on the basis of what the Fast Track Court had recorded and arrived at its findings – The same has been reproduced in various sub-paras and consequently, the appeal has been dismissed. – The High Court failed to consider the evidence on record independently thus, impugned judgment is set aside – Matter remanded back to the High Court to rehear the appeal and pass a fresh judgment. [Paras 9-11, 13, 14] 1268 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ambarish, Criminal Appeal No 446 of 2021; Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021] 6 SCR 87 : (2021) 20 SCC 818; State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood, [2022] 17 SCR 507 : (2023) 7 SCC 282 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Mere concurrence with the evidence is insufficient; Considering the evidence independently; Independent reasoning by the High Court; Lack of reasoning; Independent application of mind to crucial evidence. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 5234 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2024 of the High Court of Calcutta in CRA No. 111 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Ranjan Mukherjee, Anindo Mukherjee, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ms. Aayushi, Advs. for the Appellant. Srisatya Mohanty, Ms. Astha Sharma, Abhijit Pattanaik, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment 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-à-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. [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1269 Amar Sardar v. The State of West Bengal 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. Lear
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.