Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh & Ors (2003) 2 SCC 518
indiankanoon.org/doc/1820883/
Section 384 Cr.P.C. empowers the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal summarily if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interference. Section 385 Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure for hearing appeal not dismissed summarily and sub-section (2) thereof casts an obligation to send for the records of the case and to hear the parties. Section 386 Cr.P.C. lays down that after perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader and the Public Prosecutor, the Appellate Court may, in an appeal from conviction, reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is, therefore, mandatory for the Appellate Court to peruse the record which will necessarily mean the statement of the witnesses. In a case based upon direct eye-witness account the testimony of the eye-witnesses is of paramount importance and if the Appellate Court reverses the finding recorded by the Trial Court and acquits the accused without considering or examining the testimony of the eye-witnesses, it will be a clear infraction of Section 386 CrPC.
In Bishwanath Ghosh vs State of West Bengal & Anr AIR 1987 SC 1155, it was held that where the High Court acquitted the accused in appeal against conviction without waiting for arrival of records from the Sessions Court and without perusing evidence adduced by prosecution, there was a flagrant miscarriage of justice and the order of acquittal was liable to be set aside. It was also held that the High Court had to satisfy itself upon perusal of the records that there was no reliable and credible evidence to warrant the conviction of the accused.
In State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sahai And Ors AIR 1981 SC 1442, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/974810/ it was observed that where the High Court has not cared to examine the details of the intrinsic merits of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and has rejected their evidence on the general grounds, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court resulted in a gross and substantial miscarriage of justice so as to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
indiankanoon.org/doc/1820883/
Section 384 Cr.P.C. empowers the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal summarily if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interference. Section 385 Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure for hearing appeal not dismissed summarily and sub-section (2) thereof casts an obligation to send for the records of the case and to hear the parties. Section 386 Cr.P.C. lays down that after perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader and the Public Prosecutor, the Appellate Court may, in an appeal from conviction, reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is, therefore, mandatory for the Appellate Court to peruse the record which will necessarily mean the statement of the witnesses. In a case based upon direct eye-witness account the testimony of the eye-witnesses is of paramount importance and if the Appellate Court reverses the finding recorded by the Trial Court and acquits the accused without considering or examining the testimony of the eye-witnesses, it will be a clear infraction of Section 386 CrPC.
In Bishwanath Ghosh vs State of West Bengal & Anr AIR 1987 SC 1155, it was held that where the High Court acquitted the accused in appeal against conviction without waiting for arrival of records from the Sessions Court and without perusing evidence adduced by prosecution, there was a flagrant miscarriage of justice and the order of acquittal was liable to be set aside. It was also held that the High Court had to satisfy itself upon perusal of the records that there was no reliable and credible evidence to warrant the conviction of the accused.
In State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sahai And Ors AIR 1981 SC 1442, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/974810/ it was observed that where the High Court has not cared to examine the details of the intrinsic merits of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and has rejected their evidence on the general grounds, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court resulted in a gross and substantial miscarriage of justice so as to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment