S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

Criminal Appeal-D-922-DB of 2014 is an appeal against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in Sessions Case No. 838 of 2013 holding the appellant Ram Kumar Kalyan guilty of the murder of one Sramveer and convicting him for the commission of offences punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months’.

Criminal Appeal-AD-12 of 2015 is an appeal by the complainant Renuka Kalyan widow of Nabheet Kalyan and the said Sramveer sister, against the same order of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the appellant in CRA-D-922-DB of 2014 in respect of the offence punishable under section 307 IPC and acquitting Om Lata Kalyan, her mother-in-law of the offence under section 307, 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.

2. It would be convenient to deal with both the appeals by a common order and judgment for they relate to the same incident and the same complaint.

3. Ram Kumar Kalyan is the appellant in Criminal Appeal-D-922-DB of 2014 and the first respondent in Criminal Appeal-AD-12 of 2015. Renuka Kalyan is the second respondent in Criminal Appeal-D-922-DB of 2014 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal-AD-12 of 2015. Om Lata Kalyan is the second respondent in Criminal Appeal-AD-12 of 2015. We will for convenience refer to these parties by name.

4. It would be convenient at the outset to deal with Mr. Bajaj’s contention on behalf of the complainant that the presumption of innocence of the accused no longer exists in view of his having been convicted by the trial Court. He contended that an accused who is convicted must in appeal prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

5. The submission is entirely unfounded. An appeal against an order of conviction is not similar to an appeal to the High Court for instance under section 260A of the Income Tax Act or a second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure. The issue is concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Padam Singh v. State of U.P. 2000(1) RCR (Crl.)138, wherein it has been held:-

“2.………………………………………..When the matter was placed before the third learned Judge viz. Justice Malviya, he, instead of appreciating the evidence as a court of appeal would do, merely stated the conclusion of the two learned Judges, who originally heard the appeal and differed from each other and then he agreed with the conclusion of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kundan Singh, solely relying upon the evidence of PW 4, Vimlesh, who was also attacked by Padam Singh and who sustained the two injuries which could be caused by a blunt weapon. Mr. Justice Malviya, apart from the fact that he did not discuss the trustworthiness of the four eyewitnesses, even has not discussed the reasoning advanced by Hon'ble Justice Mathur in not placing reliance on the inimical evidence of PWs 1 to 4. A bare reading of the judgment of Justice Malviya would indicate that he has failed to discharge his duty and obligation as an appellate court, in appreciating the evidence and coming to its conclusion one way or the other. It is the duty of an appellate court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be remembered that the appellate court, like the trial court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence