9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under Indian Penal Code sections 325, 147, and 148. 2. Appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. 3. Prior acquittal in a separate case and its impact on the present case. 4. Separate trials for distinct incidents involving different charges. 5. Admissibility of evidence and reliance on earlier judgments. Analysis: 1. The appellants, convicted under sections 325, 147, and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. The appellants were initially charged with murder under section 302 but were convicted of lesser offenses by the Sessions Judge, Mathura. The High Court upheld their conviction and sentences. Subsequently, in a separate trial, the appellants were acquitted of being members of an unlawful assembly involved in an assault on another individual, Puran. 2. The appellants contended that the prior acquittal in the second case should bar their conviction in the present case. Citing a Privy Council decision, they argued for the applicability of the principle of "Res judicata" in criminal proceedings. However, the Supreme Court distinguished the cases cited by the appellants, emphasizing that the charges in the prior acquittal were different from those in the present case. The Court explained that the offenses were distinct, and separate trials were justified for the two incidents. 3. The appellants further argued that the reasoning and evidence in the earlier judgment should impact the present case. However, the Court held that the earlier judgment's admissibility was limited to showing parties and decisions, not for reevaluating evidence. The Court declined to review the evidence again, as accepted by the High Court and lower courts, in the absence of special circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the settled practice of not revisiting evidence without significant cause.
|
