Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 611
2001(5) Supreme 466
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik & U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
Mohd. Shahid -Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4049 of 2000)
Decided on 30-3-2001
IMPORTANT POINT
When High Court disposed of conviction appeal holding that it agreed with conclusion of trial Court it could not be held to be a consideration of evidence by Appellate Court and judgment of High Court could not be sustained.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 374(2)-Appellant was convicted by trial Court u/s 302 IPC-Trial Court relied on testimony of 4 eye witnesses-High Court dismissed appeal holding that it agreed with conclusion of trial Court-It could not be held to be a consideration of evidence by appellate court-Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and matter remitted. (Para 2)
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of 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 eye-witnesses, 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 eye-witnesses, 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 re-disposal 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.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal allowed.
****************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Mohd. Shahid v. State of M.P., 2001(5) Supreme 466
00022
