Supreme Court of India
Amar Sardar vs The State Of West Bengal on 12 December, 2024
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 INSC 1040 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2024
(@SLP (CRL.) No. 14976/2024)
AMAR SARDAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Leave granted.
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.
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
for a period of one month with regard to Section 354 of
Date: 2024.12.21
10:31:00 IST
Reason:
the IPC, and also, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment
1
for a period of seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- andin 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.
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.
Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset
submitted that on a reading of the impugned judgment, it
is apparent that the High Court has not independently
considered the evidence on record. As the High Court was
considering an appeal against conviction passed by the
Fast Track Court, the High Court ought to have considered
the evidence on record independently and passed a judgment
one way or the other in the appeal; however, instead a
reading of the judgment would indicate that the High Court
has simply reaffirmed the conviction and sentence imposed
by the Fast Track Court in the absence of any independent
reasoning given by the High Court.
In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant
pointedly drew our attention to the various portions of
2
the judgment and contended that the judgment is erroneous
owing to lack of any reasoning. He therefore, submitted
that impugned judgment may be set aside and relief may be
given to the appellant herein.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the
High Court was after all sustaining the conviction and
sentence imposed by the Fast Track Court. Therefore the
High Court has considered whether the Fast Track Court was
justified in passing a judgment of conviction and imposing
the sentences. The High Court has considered the evidence
on record and thereafter analysis of the evidence of the
Fast Track Court and has rightly dismissed the appeal.
There is no merit in this appeal and hence, the same may
be dismissed.
We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar
in light of the impugned judgment and perused the material
on record. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, we note
that the judgment has been sub-divided into the following
sub-topics, namely, the Appeal, the Prosecution, the
Defence, the Evidence and Analysis of evidence which is
based on the Fast Track Court’s findings in the matter and
thereafter the appeal has been dismissed.
While hearing the appeals under Section 374(2) of the
3
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”), the
High Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction. There
shall be independent application of mind in deciding the
criminal appeal against conviction. It is the duty of an
appellate court to independently evaluate the evidence
presented and determine whether such evidence is credible.
Even if the evidence is deemed reliable, the High Court
must further assess whether the prosecution has
established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High
Court though being an appellate Court is akin to a Trial
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 while
considering an appeal against a convication.
The necessity of this exercise arises from the fact
that a conviction curtails the personal liberty of the
accused in the incessant future. Hence, the High Court
must provide clear reasons for accepting the evidence on
record. 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
4
due care.
While the judgment need not be excessively lengthy,
it must reflect a proper application of mind to crucial
evidence. Albeit the High Court does not have the
advantage to examine the witnesses directly, the High
Court shall, as an appellate Court, re-assess the facts,
evidence on record and findings to arrive at a just
conclusion in deciding whether the Trial Court was
justified in convicting the accused or not. We are also
cognizant of the large pendency of cases bombarding our
courts. However, the same cannot come in the way of the
Court’s solemn duty, particularly, when a person’s liberty
is at stake.
This Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ambarish,
Criminal Appeal No 446 of 2021 held that while deciding a
criminal appeal on merits, the High Court is required to
apply its mind to the entirety of the case including the
evidence on the record before arriving at its conclusion.
In this regard, we may also refer to the orders passed by
this Court in Shakuntala Shukla vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2021) 20 SCC 818 and State Bank of India vs.
Ajay Kumar Sood, (2023) 7 SCC 282.
No doubt the impugned judgment has neatly sub-titled
various aspects of the case, but we find that the
5
independent consideration of the evidence on record is
conspicuous by its absence inasmuch as ‘paragraphs 5 to
28’ record the oral evidence and also list the exhibits
which have been produced in the said case; however, the
said evidence has not been considered by the High Court so
as to ascertain whether the Fast Track Court was justified
in passing a judgment of conviction and sentencing the
appellant. The analysis of the evidence 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.
We find that the High Court ought to have considered
the evidence on record in light of the arguments advanced
at the bar and thereafter ascertained whether the Fast
Track Court was justified in passing the judgment of
conviction and imposing the sentence. The same being
absent in the impugned judgment, for that sole reason, we
set aside the same. We remand the matter to the High Court
and restore the CRA 111/2019 on the file of the High
Court. We request the High Court to rehear the appeal and
pass a fresh judgment, bearing in mind the observations we
have made above, in accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
6
Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage
submitted that the appellant had the benefit of bail
before the Fast Track Court as well as during the
consideration of his appeal before the High Court.
Therefore, this Court may pass an order of suspension of
sentence pending disposal of the appeal by the High Court.
We do not think at this stage, we could consider the said
contention, instead, we reserve liberty to the appellant
herein to make an appropriate application seeking
suspension of sentence, if so advised.
It is needless to observe that if such an application
is made, the same shall be considered as expeditiously as
possible and in accordance with law.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……………………………………………………….,J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………….,J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 12, 2024
7
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14976/2024
[Arising out of final impugned judgment dated 15-05-2024 in CRA
No.111/2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta]
AMAR SARDAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)
(IA No. 149695/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 12-12-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGHFor Appellant(s) Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
Ms. Aayushi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
Mr. Abhijit Pattanaik, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the
signed reportable judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
8