Judgment cannot be upheld if it was previously set aside and rendered non-existent in law.

The respondent no. 2 filed an FIR in 2007 alleging that the petitioners (police personnel) assaulted her son, Biki Khan

The Trial Court (SDJM, Margherita) initially convicted the petitioners under Section 166 IPC but acquitted them under Section 325 IPC in 2011

On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, set aside that 2011 judgment and remanded the case for fresh adjudication

Upon remand and after examining additional witnesses, the SDJM passed a new judgment on 27.08.2013, acquitting all petitioners

The respondents appealed this acquittal.

In the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2015, the Sessions Judge set aside the 2013 acquittal and "uphold" the original 2011 conviction order, further modifying it to include a conviction under Section 325/34 IPC

The petitioners moved the High Court in revision challenging the procedural legality of reviving a set-aside judgment.

1. Whether the Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by "upholding" a 2011 judgment that had previously been set aside and rendered non-existent in the eyes of law

2. Whether the appellate court committed a procedural error by failing to independently examine the merits of the 2013 acquittal judgment

The court applied the procedural principles of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, specifically Sections 372 (Victim's right to appeal), 397, and 401 (Revisionary powers)

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-est* (non-existent) and cannot be subsequently revived or "upheld" in later proceedings

The High Court found that the Sessions Judge committed a "grave error" and a "procedural mistake"

The record showed that the SDJM’s 2011 judgment was explicitly set aside by the Sessions Court on 01.11.2011 during the first round of appeals

Consequently, when the SDJM passed the 2013 acquittal order following the remand, the 2011 order had ceased to exist legally

The High Court reasoned that in the second appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 62(4)/2013), the Sessions Judge was strictly required to evaluate the merits of the 2013 acquittal based on the renewed evidence (including PW-11)

By instead "upholding" the defunct 2011 order and treating it as a valid basis for conviction, the Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction and ignored the procedural history of the case

The Court held that a non-existent judgment could not be reconsidered or upheld

The matter was remanded to the Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, with directions to hear Criminal Appeal No. 62(4)/2013 afresh on its own merits, specifically ignoring the set-aside 2011 order

The appeal is to be decided within two months