LexLAL MANDI versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A LAL MANDI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL APRIL 4, 1995 B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] Indian Penal Code 1860-Section 302-Criminal Appeaf-Appraisal of evidence by the appellate court-Appellate coult must appreciate the evidence to arrive at an· independent findinirThe accused to be given benefit of C reasonable doubt if on appreciation of evidence-two views are possible. Constituton of India-Article 136--Reappraisal of evidence unt!zi-<:oun does not generally reappraise evidence but in cenain cases evidence on record can be analysed to satisfy judicial consience. D The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal without considering the evidence on record on the ground that the Sessions Judge had the opportunity of watching the demeanour and conduct of the witnesses deposing before him and bis E assessment of evidence cannot be substituted by the appellate court even if two views were possible on the appraisal of the evidence. Hence the present appeal by way of S.L.P. Setting aside the conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 302/34 IPC and 201 IPC and convicting him for offence under F Section 325/34 IPC, this Court · HELD: 1. An appellate court may give every reasonable weight to the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court but it must be remembered that an appellate court is duty bound, in the same way as the trial court, to test the evidence extrinsically as well as intrinsically and to consider as G throughly as the trial court, all the circumstances available on the record so as to arrive at an independent finding regarding quilt or innocence of the convict. An appellate court fails in the discharge of one of its essential duties, if it fails to appreciate the evidence on the record and arrive at an independent finding based on the appraisal of such evidence. The High H Court failed to do so and its view is patently erroneous. [138-B, CJ 134 y LALMAND!v. STATE[DR.ANAND,J.] 135 · 2. Though, the powers of an appellate court, while dealing with au A appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction are equally wide but the considerations which weigh with it while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and in an appeal against conviction are distinct and seperate. The presumption of innocence of an accused which gets strengthened on his acquittal is not available ou bis conviction. [137-H, 138-A-B] Tota _Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 1083, distinguished. -··-< 3.1. Though this court does not generally reappraise the evideuce B which bas been considered by the courts below, in an appeal by Special Leave, but since the consideration of the evidence by the High .Cqurt was C not proper, the evidellll!' on the record can be analysed. [138-D) . . , , . I 3.2. The evidence on the record does not justify the convictfon of tire appellant for offences under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. [139-E) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. D 745 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.90 of the Calcutta High Court in Cd.A.No. 172 of 1986. K.V. Vishwanathan and K.V. Venkataraman for the Appellant. Tapas Ray, J.R. Das and D.K. Sinha for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by E DR. ANAND, J. The appellant alongwith four absconding accused F Man Singh, Babu Lal, Arjan and a son-in-law of Ganesh was charge- sheeted for committing the murder of Dullen Maddi, wife of PW2, Murka Maddi on 31.8.1982 at about 8.00 p.m. It is alleged by the prosecution that after causing injuries to the deceased, the assailants buried her dead body with the intention of screening the offenders from legal consequences. The G learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan convicted the appellant for offences under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 201 !PC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offence under Section 302/34 !PC and RI for a period of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for the offence' under Section 201 IPC. The substantive sentences were however, directed to run concurrently. His appeal before H 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R. A the High Court of Calcutta against conviction and sentence failed on 31.7.1990. Hence, this appeal by special leave. The prosecution case against the appellant is that the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.