LAHANAPPA NAMAJI GHORPAE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-original accused have been charged, tried and convicted for the offence punishable under sections 452, 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (I. P. C. ) by the J. M. F. C. Jintoor. Being aggrieved by the said order petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1992 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani. The learned Additional Sessions judge, Parbhani while dismissing the appeal had framed only one point i. e. "whether the order of conviction and sentence passed against appellants for the offence under sections 452, 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code is erroneous and improper. "

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for petitioners has pointed out that the supreme Court in the case of Padam Singh vs. State of U. P. , reported in (2000) 1 scc 621, after considering the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C. ) specially sections 374, 378 and 386, has observed in reference to the obligation of the Appellate Court to look into an available material in the case, while arriving at an independent conclusion. It is further observed that "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 with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final Court of appeal and that presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial Court. " The Apex Court has further observed that "the judicial approach in dealing with the cases has to be cautious, circumspect and careful and the High Court, therefore, has to consider the matter carefully and examine all relevant and material circumstances before upholding the conviction. "

(3.) After hearing both parties, I am convinced that the Additional Sessions judge, Parbhani while dismissing the appeal failed to deal with points as dealt with by the trial Court. The separate reasonings as given, need more details as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Padam Singh (supra) and in many other cases.