LexKAMLESH PRABHUDAS TANNA & ANOTHER versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 9 S.C.R. 257 KAMLESH PRABHUDAS TANNA & ANOTHER A v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 1517 of 2007) AUGUST 26, 2013 B [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: Appeal - High Court affirming the conviction - Held: It is c the sacrosanct duty of appellate court, while sitting in appeal against judgment of trial court, to be satisfied that the guilt of accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt -- Appreciation of evidence and proper re-assessment to arrive: at the conclusion is imperative in a criminal appeal - D In the instant case, High Court, while dealing with the statutory ' appeal has failed to appreciate and scrutinize the evidence in proper perspective, and the reasons ascribed by it for accepting the evidence and concurring with the view of the trial court is not supported by any acceptable reason -- There is E total lack of deliberation and proper ratiocination - Judgment of High Court set aside and matter remitted to it for disposal of the appeal afresh. The marriage between appellant-accused No. 1 (A-1) and the sister of the informant (PW-2) was solemnized on F 24.9.1997. Two children, one son and a daughter were born to the couple. On 11.9.2001, A-1 informed PW-2 telephonically that his sister had committed suicide. PW- 2 lodged an FIR alleging that after the marriage of his sister, A-1 and his mother had been constantly asking for G dowry of Rs.2 lacs, but as the said demand could not be satisfied they started ill-treating her in the matrimonial home because of which she was compelled to commit suicide. 257 H / A B 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. The trial court convicted the accused of the charges and sentenced them on all counts including 8 years RI u/s. 304-8 IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is the sacrosanct duty of the appellate court, while sitting in appeal against the judgment of the trial court, to be satisfied that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt after C proper re-assessment, re-appreciation and re-scrutiny of the material on record. Appreciation of evidence and proper re-assessment to arrive at the conclusion is imperative in a criminal appeal. That is the quality of exercise which is expected of the appellate court to be D undertaken and when that is not done, the cause of justice is not subserved, for neither an innocent person should be sent to prison without his fault nor a guilty person should be let off despite evidence on record to assure his guilt. [Para 12-13) [265-C-F] E · 1.2 In the instant case, the High Court, while dealing with the statutory appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure, has failed to appreciate and scrutinize the evidence in proper perspective, and the reasons ascribed F by it for accepting the evidence and concurring with the view of the trial court is not supported by any acceptable reason. There is total lack of deliberation and proper ratiocination. There has been no assessment of evidence on record. The credibility of the witnesses has not appositely been adjudged. Affirmative satisfaction G recorded by the High Court is far from being satisfactory. The trial judge has written an extremely confused judgment replete with repetitions and in such a situation it becomes absolutely obligatory on the part of the High Court to be more careful to come to a definite conclusion H about the guilt of the accused persons, for their liberty KAMLESH PRABHUDAS TANNA v. STATE OF 259 GUJARAT is jeopardized. Consequently, the judgment and order A passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to dispose of the appeal afresh as expeditiously as possible. [Para 7, 12 and 14) [263-A- B; 265-A-C, F-G] Padam Singh v. State of U.P. 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 59 = (2000) 1 SCC 621.; Rama and others v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 SCC 571; Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek v. State of Gujarat 2012 SCR 1012 = (2012) 11 SCC 312; Bani Singh B v. State of U.P. 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247 = (1996) 4 SCC 720; Majjal v. State of Haryana (2013) 6 SCC 798 - referred C to. Case Law Reference: 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 59 referred to para 8 (2002) 4 sec 571 referred to para 9 2012 SCR 1012 referred to para 10 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247 referred to para 10 (2013) 6 sec 798 referred to para 11 CRIMI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.