Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1517 OF 2007

Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna & Another ...  Appellants

Versus

State of Gujarat         ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

Assailing the legal acceptability of the judgment and  

order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad  

in Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2004 whereby the Division  

Bench of  the High Court  has given endorsement to  the  

judgment  passed  by  the  learned  Additional  Sessions  

Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Jamnagar in Sessions Case  

No. 158 of 2001 wherein the learned trial Judge had found  

the appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 304B,  

306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal  

Code  (for  short  “IPC”)  and  Section  4  of  the  Dowry

Page 2

Prohibition  Act,  1961  and  imposed  the  sentence  of  

rigorous  imprisonment  of  seven  years  and  a  fine  of  

Rs.1,000/-  on  the  first  score,  five  years  rigorous  

imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-  on  the  second  

score, eighteen months rigorous imprisonment and a fine  

of  Rs.500/-  on  the  third  count  and six  months  rigorous  

imprisonment and a fine of Rs.250/- on the fourth count  

with the default clause for the fine amount in respect of  

each of the offences.  The learned trial Judge stipulated  

that all the sentences shall be concurrent.

2. Filtering  the  unnecessary  details,  the  prosecution  

case,  in  brief,  is  that  the  marriage  between  the  

appellant No. 1 and deceased Sandhya, sister of the  

informant,  PW-2,  was  solemnized  on  24.9.1997.  

After  the  marriage  the  deceased  stayed  with  her  

husband and the mother-in-law, the appellant  No.2  

herein, at the matrimonial home situate at Jamnagar  

in  Patel  Colony  Sheri  No.  1.   In  the  wedlock,  two  

children,  one  son  and  a  daughter  were  born.   On  

11.9.2001,  the informant,  brother  of  the deceased,  

got a telephonic call from the accused No. 1 that his  

2

Page 3

sister Sandhya had committed suicide.  On receipt of  

the telephone call he travelled from Goa along with  

his friend, Sandil Kumar, PW-20, and at that juncture,  

the husband of Sandhya, Kamlesh, informed that the  

deceased was fed up with the constant ill-health of  

her children and the said frustration had led her to  

commit suicide by tying a ‘dupatta’ around her neck.  

The  brother  of  the  deceased  did  not  believe  the  

version of Kamlesh, and lodged an FIR alleging that  

the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased,  

after  the marriage,  had been constantly  asking for  

dowry of Rs.2 lacs from the father of the deceased,  

but as the said demand could not be satisfied due to  

the financial condition of the father, the husband and  

his mother started ill-treating her in the matrimonial  

home and being unable to tolerate the physical and  

mental torture she was compelled to commit suicide.  

Be it noted, as the death was unnatural, the police  

had sent  the  dead body  for  post  mortem and the  

doctor conducting the autopsy opined that the death  

was due to suicide.  After the criminal law was set in  

3

Page 4

motion on the base of the FIR lodged by the brother,  

the  investigating  officer  examined  number  of  

witnesses and after completing all the formalities laid  

the charge sheet under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A  

read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 4 of the  

Dowry  Prohibition  Act,  1961  before  the  competent  

Court,  who,  in  turn,  committed  the  matter  to  the  

Court of Session.

3. The  accused  persons  denied  the  allegations  and  

claimed  to  be  tried.   The  prosecution,  in  order  to  

establish  the  charges  levelled  against  the  accused  

persons,  examined  22  witnesses  and  got  marked  

number  of  documents.   The  defence  chose  not  to  

adduce any evidence.

4. The  learned  trial  Judge  principally  posed  four  

questions, namely, whether the accused persons had  

inflicted unbearable torture on the deceased as well  

as  caused mental  harassment  to  make themselves  

liable  for  punishment  under  Section  498A  IPC;  

whether the material brought on record established  

the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34  

4

Page 5

IPC; whether the physical and mental torture on the  

deceased  compelled  her  to  commit  suicide  on  

11.9.2001 as a consequence of  which the accused  

persons  had  become  liable  to  be  convicted  under  

Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC; and whether  

the accused persons had demanded a sum of Rs.2  

lacs towards dowry from the parents of Sandhya so  

as to be found guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry  

Prohibition Act.  The learned trial Judge answered all  

the questions in the affirmative and opined that the  

prosecution had been able to prove the offences to  

the hilt  and,  accordingly,  imposed the sentence as  

stated hereinbefore.

5. Grieved by the judgment of conviction and the order  

of sentence the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal  

No.  531 of  2004.   The High Court  at  the  stage of  

admission  had  suo  motu  issued  notice  for  

enhancement  of  sentence  which  was  eventually  

converted to Criminal Revision Application No. 444 of  

2007.  The State had preferred Criminal Appeal No.  

1889 of 2004 for the self-same purpose.  The appeals  

5

Page 6

and the revision application were disposed of by a  

common  judgment  dated  6.9.2007  whereby  the  

Division Bench of the High Court concurred with the  

view  expressed  by  the  learned  trial  Judge  and,  

accordingly, dismissed the appeals preferred by the  

accused  as  well  as  by  the  State  and  resultantly  

Criminal  Revision  initiated  suo  motu  by  the  High  

Court also stood dismissed.  The non-success in the  

appeal  has  compelled  the  accused-appellants  to  

prefer this appeal by special leave.

6. We  have  heard  Mr.  Ranbir  Singh  Yadav,  learned  

counsel  for  the appellant  No.  1,  Ms.  Nidhi,  learned  

counsel  for  the  appellant  No.  2,  and  Ms.  Pinky  

Behera,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondent-State.

7. In the present appeal we are constrained to note that  

the  High  Court  has  really  not  appreciated  and  

analysed the evidence on record and it is perceptible  

that it has narrated the prosecution version, referred  

to  the  names  of  witnesses  examined  and  the  

documents exhibited during the trial, reproduced the  

6

Page 7

findings recorded by the learned trial Judge, recorded  

the submissions of learned counsel for the respective  

parties and thereafter, referred to the post mortem  

report, the FSL report, inquest panchnama and other  

documentary  evidence  and,  ultimately  referring  to  

the deposition of prosecution witnesses in a cryptic  

manner, has come to hold that there is no lacuna in  

the  oral  evidence  and  the  same  has  been  duly  

corroborated  by  the  documentary  evidence.   The  

High Court  has dealt  with the factum of  suicide at  

some  length  which  was  not  disputed.   Thereafter,  

there  has  been  advertence  to  the  issue  of  

enhancement of sentence in the appeal preferred by  

the  State  and  how  the  said  appeal  did  not  merit  

consideration.  As we perceive, the High Court, while  

dealing with  a statutory  appeal  under  the Code of  

Criminal  Procedure,  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.   

7

Page 8

8. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that though it  

may be difficult  to  state that  the judgment suffers  

from sans reasons, yet it is not at all difficult to say  

that  the  reasons  ascribed  are  really  apology  for  

reasons.  If we allow ourselves to say so, one may  

ascribe certain reasons which seem to be reasons but  

the litmus test is to give seemly and condign reasons  

either  to  sustain  or  overturn  the  judgment.   The  

filament  of  reasoning  must  logically  flow  from  

requisite  analysis,  but,  unfortunately,  the  said  

exercise has not been carried out.  In this context, we  

may  refer  with  profit  to  the  decision  in  Padam  

Singh  v.  State  of  U.P.1,  wherein  a  two-Judge  

Bench, while dealing with the duty of the appellate  

court, has expressed thus: -

“It is the duty of an appellate court to look into  the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at  an  independent  conclusion  as  to  whether  the  said  evidence  can  be  relied  upon  or  not  and  even if it can be relied upon, then whether the  prosecution can be said  to  have been proved  beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence.  The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged  by the appellate court in drawing inference from  proved  and  admitted  facts.   It  must  be  remembered that the appellate court,  like the  

1 (2000) 1 SCC 621

8

Page 9

trial court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that  the prosecution case is  substantially  true and  the  guilt  of  the  accused  has  been  proved  beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption  of  innocence  with  which  the  accused  starts,  continues right through until he is held guilty by  the final court of appeal and that presumption is  neither  strengthened  by  an  acquittal  nor  weakened by a conviction in the trial court.”

[Emphasis supplied] 9. In  Rama and others  v.  State of Rajasthan2, the  

Court  has  stated  about  the  duty  of  the  appellate  

court in the following terms: -

“It  is  well  settled that  in  a criminal  appeal,  a  duty  is  enjoined  upon  the  appellate  court  to  reappraise  the  evidence  itself  and  it  cannot  proceed to dispose of the appeal upon appraisal  of evidence by the trial  court alone especially  when the appeal has been already admitted and  placed  for  final  hearing.   Upholding  such  a  procedure  would  amount  to  negation  of  valuable right  of  appeal  of an accused,  which  cannot be permitted under law.”

10. In  Iqbal  Abdul  Samiya  Malek  v.  State  of  

Gujarat3, relying on the pronouncements in Padam  

Singh (supra) and  Bani Singh  v.  State of U.P.4,  

this Court has reiterated the principle pertaining to  

the duty of the appellate court.

2 (2002) 4 SCC 571 3 (2012) 11 SCC 312 4 (1996) 4 SCC 720

9

Page 10

11. Recently, a three-Judge Bench in Majjal v. State of  

Haryana5 has ruled thus: -

“It was necessary for the High Court to consider  whether  the  trial  court’s  assessment  of  the  evidence and its opinion that the appellant must  be  convicted  deserve  to  be  confirmed.   This  exercise  is  necessary  because  the  personal  liberty of an accused is curtailed because of the  conviction.   The  High  Court  must  state  its  reasons  why  it  is  accepting  the  evidence  on  record.  The High Court’s concurrence with the  trial court’s view would be acceptable only if it  is supported by reasons.  In such appeals it is a  court of first appeal.  Reasons cannot be cryptic.  By this, we do not mean that the High Court is  expected to write an unduly long treatise.  The  judgment may be short but must reflect proper  application  of  mind  to  vital  evidence  and  important submissions which go to the root of  the matter.”

12. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles  

we find that  there is  total  lack of  deliberation and  

proper  ratiocination.   There  has  been  really  no  

assessment of evidence on record.  The credibility of  

the  witnesses  has  not  appositely  been  adjudged.  

Affirmative satisfaction recorded by the High Court is  

far from being satisfactory.  We are pained to say so,  

as we find that the learned trial Judge has written an  

extremely confused judgment replete with repetitions  

5 (2013) 6 SCC 798

1

Page 11

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 about  the  

guilt  of  the  accused  persons,  for  their  liberty  is  

jeopardized.   It  may  be  stated  at  the  cost  of  

repetition  that  it  is  the  sacrosanct  duty  of  the  

appellate  court,  while  sitting  in  appeal  against  the  

judgment of the trial Judge, to be satisfied that the  

guilt of the accused has been established beyond all  

reasonable  doubt  after  proper  re-assessment,  re-

appreciation  and  re-scrutiny  of  the  material  on  

record.

13. It  can be stated with certitude that 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 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  

1

Page 12

despite evidence on record to assure his guilt.  Ergo,  

the emphasis is on the duty of the appellate court.

14. Consequently,  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  

passed in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  531 of  2004 by the  

High Court is set aside and the appeal preferred by  

the  appellants  is  remitted  for  fresh  disposal.   The  

High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal as  

expeditiously  as  possible  so  that  the  Sword  of  

Damocles  is  not  kept  hanging  on  the  head  of  the  

appellants.  As the appellants are on bail, they shall  

continue  to  remain  on  bail  on  same  terms  and  

conditions till the disposal of the appeal by the High  

Court.

15. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

    ……………………………….J. [K. S. Radhakrishnan]

……………………………….J.                                             [Dipak Misra]

New Delhi; August 26, 2013.

1