Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1970 (3) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1970 (3) TMI 171 - SC - Customs

Issues: Appeal against conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Right to prefer an appeal from a sentence of the Court of Sessions under Section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code; Principles governing the dismissal of appeals by the High Court; Illustration of arguable and substantial points in criminal appeals.

In this case, the appellant, accused No. 1, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of two individuals. The appeal was made against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sholapur, which was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay and the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was also refused. The right to prefer an appeal from the Court of Sessions is provided under Section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code, allowing appeals on both matters of fact and law, except in cases of trial by jury where the appeal is limited to matters of law only.

The Supreme Court highlighted various principles regarding the dismissal of appeals by the High Court. It emphasized that the Appellate Court has the power of summary dismissal but should provide reasons if the appeal raises arguable and substantial points. The Court referred to previous decisions to illustrate what constitutes arguable and substantial points in criminal appeals. For instance, issues such as gross illegality in relying on co-accused evidence, denial of opportunity to be heard, and failure to consider the appellant's position were considered substantial grounds for appeal.

The appellant raised contentions in the appeal, arguing that his conviction under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 was erroneous after the acquittal of accused No. 2. Additionally, he challenged the finding of intimacy based on third-party evidence without direct testimony from the individuals involved. These contentions were deemed arguable and substantial matters of law and fact. The High Court's dismissal of the appeal with a single word without providing reasons led the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order and remanding the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates