A
B
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1012
IQBAL ABDUL SAMIYA MALEK
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2012)
OCTOBER 1, 2012
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 386 - Criminal
appeal - Disposal of - Procedure for - High Court disposing
C of the criminal appeal without adverting to all the materials -
On appeal, held: The procedure followed by High Court in
disposal of the appeal not acceptable - The procedure
prescribed uls. 386 is required to be followed - It is the duty
of the appellate court to look into the evidence adduced to
D arrive at an independent conclusion - Appeal - Criminal
Appeal.
E
F
Padam Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 2000 SC 361: 1999
(5) Suppl.SCR 59; Bani Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P.
1996 (4). sec· 720: 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 59 Relied on
1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247 Relied on
Para 3
Para 3
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1584 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.3.2009 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of
G 2003.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 1585 of 2012.
H
1012
IQBAL ABDUL SAMIYA MALEK v. STATE OF
1013
GUJARAT
Manoj K. Mishra, Deepak Mishra, V.K. Mishra, Shivpati B.
A
Pandey for the Appellant.
K. Enatoli Serna, S. Panclu, Hemantika Wahi for the
Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. Heard both sides.
2. Leave granted.
B
c
3. It is the grievance of the appellants/accused that when
they filed regular appeal before the High Court challenging the
conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life
imprisonment, the High Court without going into all the materials
D
including oral and documentary evidence disposed of their
appeal affirming the judgment of the Trial Court.
4. In view of the above contention, we have gone through
the impugned judgment of the High Court. As rightly pointed out
E
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants,
after narrating the case of the prosecution and the defence as
well as the order of the Sessions Judge convicting the
appellants, without adverting to all the materials, the High Court
has merely disposed of the appeal. The procedure followed by
the High Court in a matter of this nature is not acceptable.
Elaborate procedures have been prescribed under Section 386
of Crl.P.C. for disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court.
F
5. It is the duty of an Appellate Court to look into the
evidence adduced in the case arrive at an independent
G
conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon
or not and even it can be relied upon then whether the
prosecution can be said to have proved beyond reasonable
doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to
be adjudged by Appellate Court in drawing inference from
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 8 S.C.R.
A proved and admitted facts. Further appeal cannot be disposed
of without examining records/merits (Vide Padam Singh Vs.
State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 361 and Bani Singh & Others Vs.
State of U.P. 1996 (4) SCC, 720. The said recourse has not
been followed by the High Court.
B
6. In view of the same, without expressing anything on the
merits of the claim of either party, we set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court and remit it to the High Court. We
request the High Court to restore the appeal on its file and
C dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a
period of six months.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our
attention to the fact that the appellants are in jail for a period of
more than 11 years and seek for an order of bail from this
D Court.Since we are now remitting the matters to the High Court,
the appellants are free to make such claim before the High
Court.
8. With the above observation, the appeals are disposed
E of.
K.K.T.
Appeals disposed of.
Lex