LexAMARJIT SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 5 S.C.R. 614 AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1394 of 2003) APRIL 29, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c s. 37 4 - 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.37 4, 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. Altaf Ahmed, Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Gupta, Nikhil Sharma for the Appellants. Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER B c 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: c D E '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 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. 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. 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 n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.