An appellate court cannot uphold a non-existent trial court judgment previously set aside and remanded.

The respondent-informant filed an FIR in 2007 alleging that the petitioners (police personnel) assaulted her son, Biki Khan.

Following a reinvestigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 166/325/34 IPC.

On 30.04.2011, the SDJM Margherita acquitted the petitioners of Section 325 (grievous hurt) but convicted them under Section 166 (public servant disobeying law).

On appeal (Crl. Appeal 11(2)/2011), the Sessions Judge set aside this judgment on 01.11.2011 and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

Upon fresh trial, the SDJM acquitted all petitioners of all charges on 27.08.2013.

Respondents 1 and 2 appealed this acquittal (Crl. Appeal 62(4)/2013).

The Sessions Judge, via the impugned order dated 19.02.2015, purportedly "uphold" the original 2011 conviction and further convicted the petitioners under Section 325 IPC.

Whether the Sessions Judge committed a procedural illegality by upholding and modifying a judgment dated 30.04.2011 that had already been set aside and rendered non-existent by a previous appellate order.

Whether the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to limit its review to the merits of the acquittal judgment dated 27.08.2013.

The court applied the procedural principles governing criminal revisions and appeals under Sections 397, 401, and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

It relied on the fundamental legal doctrine that once a judgment is set aside by a superior court and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication, the original judgment becomes non-existent in the eyes of the law and cannot subsequently be "upheld" or "modified" in later proceedings.

The High Court found that the Sessions Judge committed a grave procedural error.

Since the Judgment dated 30.04.2011 had been explicitly set aside by the Sessions Court itself on 01.11.2011 during the first round of appeals, it carried no legal force.

The trial court had subsequently conducted a fresh trial and passed a new judgment of acquittal on 27.08.2013.

The High Court reasoned that the Sessions Judge, in the second appeal, was legally required to examine only the merits of the 2013 acquittal.

By reaching back to "uphold" and "modify" the defunct 2011 order, the Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction and ignored the fresh evidence recorded (PW-11) during the remand period.

The case was remanded to the Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, with directions to hear Criminal Appeal No. 62(4)/2013 afresh on its own merits, specifically without considering the non-existent 2011 judgment.

The court ordered the appeal to be decided within two months due to the age of the 2007 FIR.