The reliability of prosecution's evidence and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 30.11.2009, passed in the Criminal Case No. 26 of 2008, State Vs. Trilok Chand, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur (“the case”). By the impugned judgment and order, the revisionist has been sentenced under Section 279, 427 and 304A IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 279 IPC- rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

(ii) Under Section 427 IPC- rigorous imprisonment for six months

(iii) Under Section 304A IPC-rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and,

(ii) Judgement and order 21.10.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2009, Trilok Chand Vs. State of Uttarakhand by the court of Sessions Judge, Champawat. By it, the judgment and order passed in the case has been upheld.

2. None is present for the revisionist. In fact, non bailable warrants were issued against the revisionist, but on 07.06.2022, the Court observed that an admitted revision has to be decided on merits irrespective of the facts as to whether the revisionist appears or not. The Court has taken note of the judgment in the case of Praban Kumar Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal and another, AIR 1959 SC 144. In which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “whether it was an accused person or it was a complainant who has moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, if the High Court has issued a rule, that rule has to be heard and determined in accordance with law, whether or not the petitioner in the High Court is alive or dead, or whether he is represented in court by a legal practitioner.” Thereafter, this Court has also noted the principles of law, as laid down in the case of K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721, in which it was observed that even in the non appearance of the appellant, the appeal may be decided or the court may adjourn the matter. In paras 18 and 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

18. In Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 720 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 848 : AIR 1996 SC 2439], a three-Judge Bench was called upon to decide whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-appellants therein against the order of conviction and sentence issued by the trial court for non-prosecution. The High Court had referred to the pronouncement in Ram Naresh Yadav [AIR 1987 SC 1500 : 1987 Cri LJ 1856] and passed the order. The three-Judge Bench referred to the scheme of the Code, especially, the relevant provisions, namely, Section 384 and opined that since the High Court had already admitted the appeal following the procedure laid down in Section 385 of the Code, Section 384 which enables the High Court to summarily dismiss the appeal was not applicable. The view expressed in Shyam Deo case [(1971) 1 SCC 855 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 353 : AIR 1971 SC 1606] was approved with slight clarification but the judgment in Ram Naresh Yadav case [AIR 1987 SC 1500 : 1987 Cri LJ 1856] was overruled. The three-Judge Bench proceeded to lay down as follows : (Bani Singh case [(1996) 4 SCC 720 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 848 : AIR 1996 SC 2439] , SCC pp. 726-27, paras 15-16)

“15. … It is the duty of the appellant and his lawyer to remain present on the appointed day, time and place when the appeal is posted for hearing. This is the requirement of the Code on a plain reading of Sections 385-386 of the Code. The law does not enjoin that the court shall adjourn the case if both the appellant and his lawyer are absent. If the court does so as a matter of prudence or indulgence, it is a different matter, but it is not bound to adjourn the matter. It can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and the judgment of the trial court. We would, however, hasten to add that if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellant-accused if his la