| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/670737 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Mar-30-2001 |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4049 of 2000) |
| Judge | G.B. Pattanaik and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ. |
| Reported in | 2001(4)SCALE585; (2002)9SCC731 |
| Acts | Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Section 302 |
| Appellant | Mohd. Shahid |
| Respondent | State of Madhya Pradesh |
| Prior history | Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4049 of 2000 |
Excerpt:
-
[ g.b. pattanaik and; u.c. banerjee, jj.] - criminal procedure code, 1973 — section. 386 — appeal against conviction — improper disposal — high court, instead of examining and reappreciating the evidence of the eyewitnesses, disposing of the matter by holding that it was not necessary to give detailed reasons as the conclusion of the trial judge in convicting and sentencing the appellant was correct in high court's view also -- the learned sessions judge relying upon the evidence convicted the accused-appellant under section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. we, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and sentence and remit the criminal appeal to the high court for redisposal in accordance with law. the appeal is disposed of accordingly.g.b. pattanaik and; u.c. banerjee, jj.1. delay condoned.2. leave granted.3. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the division bench of the madhya pradesh high court disposing of a criminal appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the sessions judge. the appellant stood charged under section 302 for having given knife-blow on the abdomen and chest of the deceased. there were as many as 4 eyewitnesses pws 5, 8, 10 and 11. the learned sessions judge relying upon the evidence convicted the accused-appellant under section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. on an appeal being carried, the appellate authority, instead of examining and reappreciating the evidence of all these eyewitnesses, disposed of the matter by holding that it is not necessary to give detailed reasons as the court agrees with the conclusion of the trial judge in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant. this, in our view, cannot be held to be a consideration of the evidence by an appellate court in a criminal appeal. we, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and sentence and remit the criminal appeal to the high court for redisposal in accordance with law. the appeal being an old one, the high court would do well in disposing of the same at an early date.4. the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Judgment:G.B. Pattanaik and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court disposing of a criminal appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge. The appellant stood charged under Section 302 for having given knife-blow on the abdomen and chest of the deceased. There were as many as 4 eyewitnesses PWs 5, 8, 10 and 11. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. On an appeal being carried, the Appellate Authority, instead of examining and reappreciating the evidence of all these eyewitnesses, disposed of the matter by holding that it is not necessary to give detailed reasons as the Court agrees with the conclusion of the trial Judge in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant. This, in our view, cannot be held to be a consideration of the evidence by an appellate court in a criminal appeal. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and sentence and remit the criminal appeal to the High Court for redisposal in accordance with law. The appeal being an old one, the High Court would do well in disposing of the same at an early date.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.