The Rajasthan High Court has held that an appellate court cannot remand a criminal appeal to the trial court merely because it disagrees with the manner in which the evidence already on record was appreciated.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur ruled that where the entire evidence is available before the appellate court, it is required to independently examine and re-appreciate that evidence and arrive at its own conclusion in accordance with law.
The proceedings arose from allegations made by the complainant against the petitioners in relation to alleged matrimonial cruelty, dowry-related harassment and other offences. According to the FIR, the complainant’s marriage with petitioner No. 1 had taken place approximately 30 years before the FIR was lodged. She alleged that soon after the marriage, she was subjected to harassment and humiliation in connection with demands for dowry.
Buy Now: JurisHour Ultimate Legal Research Combo – 4 Premium E-Magazines at an Unbeatable Price
It was further alleged that approximately two months before registration of the FIR, petitioner No. 1 forcibly took away her stridhan and turned her out of the matrimonial home. Following investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against petitioner No. 1 under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC, while petitioner No. 2 was charge-sheeted under Sections 494/109 IPC.
The trial before the Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara proceeded with the examination of 11 prosecution witnesses. After considering the evidence, the trial court, by judgment dated November 6, 2017, acquitted the petitioners of the charges.
The State challenged the acquittal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, through Criminal Appeal No. 28/2017. Instead of independently deciding the appeal, the appellate court, by order dated July 17, 2018, remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to pass a fresh order after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the applicable legal provisions.
The petitioners challenged this remand before the High Court, arguing that the appellate court had committed a serious jurisdictional error. Their principal contention was that if the appellate court believed that the trial court had improperly appreciated the evidence or that its acquittal suffered from an illegality, the appellate court itself was required to examine the evidence and decide the appeal on merits.
Digvijay Singh Chauhan, the Counsel on behalf of the petitioners specifically relied upon Section 386 Cr.P.C., contending that the provision does not permit an appellate court to remand a criminal appeal merely for re-appreciation or re-evaluation of evidence which had already been recorded. According to them, remand may be justified where circumstances require further inquiry or retrial, but not where the appellate court simply wants the same evidence to be reconsidered by the trial court.
The High Court examined the statutory framework governing appellate powers under Section 386 Cr.P.C. The provision sets out the powers available to an appellate court while deciding criminal appeals, including the power, in an appeal against acquittal, to reverse the order and direct further inquiry, order a retrial or commit the accused for trial, as the circumstances warrant.
The Court noted that Section 386 prescribes the parameters within which appellate jurisdiction has to be exercised. In an appeal against an acquittal, the appellate court possesses substantial powers, but those powers must be exercised in accordance with the statutory scheme.
A crucial aspect of the High Court’s ruling was its finding that the Additional Sessions Judge had not ordered either further inquiry or a retrial. Instead, the appellate court had found fault with the trial court’s appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and then sent the matter back for reconsideration of the same material.
The High Court held that such a course was impermissible. Once the appeal was before the appellate court and the entire evidence recorded by the trial court was available on the record, the appellate court was required, if it considered the trial court’s findings erroneous or the evidence improperly appreciated, to itself examine and re-appreciate that evidence and arrive at its own conclusion.
Justice Mathur made it clear that the power of remand cannot be used merely to require the trial court to re-appreciate evidence that is already available on record and deliver a fresh judgment. According to the Court, such an approach effectively requires the trial court to reconsider the same material while leaving the appellate court’s own jurisdiction unexercised.
The High Court also reiterated that an appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusion, subject to the established principles governing interference with an acquittal.
However, where the appellate court concludes that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was erroneous, it cannot ordinarily avoid deciding the appeal on merits by simply remanding the case for fresh appreciation of the same evidence.
The distinction drawn by the Court is therefore between a legally justified remand involving further inquiry or retrial and an impermissible remand intended merely to obtain a fresh assessment of evidence already available.
Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the Additional Sessions Judge had not recorded any finding demonstrating that further inquiry or retrial was necessary. The remand was essentially based on the appellate court’s view that the oral and documentary evidence had not been properly appreciated by the trial court.
The High Court consequently concluded that the remand order was not sustainable in law.
It accordingly quashed and set aside the order dated July 17, 2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2017.
Rather than ending the appellate proceedings, the High Court directed the appellate court to re-hear and decide Criminal Appeal No. 28/2017 on its own merits and strictly in accordance with law, particularly keeping in view the requirements of Section 386 Cr.P.C.
The High Court further directed that the appellate court should not be influenced by any observations made by the High Court in the revision proceedings. It was directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date on which it receives a copy of the High Court’s order.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
