Ss. 273, 205, 299, 353, 367, 391 Cr.P.C. and Ss. 30, 33 Indian Evidence Act In the matter of criminal trial

Ss. 273, 205, 299, 353, 367, 391 Cr.P.C. and Ss. 30, 33 Indian Evidence Act In the matter of criminal trial against any accused the distinctiveness of evidence is paramount in light of accused’s ri ght to fair trial, which encompasses two important factor along with others, i.e. firstly, the recording of evidence in the present of accused or his pleader and secondly, the right of accused to cross examination the witnesses. These facts are, of course, subject to exceptions provided under law. In other words, the culpability of any accused cannot be decided on the basis of any evidence, which was not recorded in his presence or his pleader’s presence and for which he did not get an opportunity of cross examination. Evidence recorded in a criminal trial against any accused is confined to the culpability of that accused only and it does not have any bearing upon a coaccused, who has been tried on the basis of evidence recorded in a separate trial, though for the commission of the same offence. It is also an undisputed proposition of law that in a criminal appeal against conviction, the appellate court examines the evidence recorded by the trial court and takes a call upon the issue of guilt and innocence o f the accused. Hence the scope of appellate court’s power does not go beyond the evidence available before it in the form of trial court record of a particular case unless section 367 or section 391 of Cr.P.C. comes into a play in a given case which are me ant for further enquiry or additional evidence while dealing with any criminal appeal. It was held that in the present controversy, two different criminal appeals were being heard and decided against two different judgment based upon evidence recorded in separate trials, though for the commission of the same offence. As such, the High Court felt into an error while passing a common judgment, based on evidence recorded in only one trial, against two sets of accused persons having been subjected to separate trials. It was held that the High Court ought to have distinctly considered and dealt with the evidence both the trials and then to decide the culpability of accused persons. 

Case Law:

A.T. Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department, 

Citation:

2022 Cri.L.J. 1041 :

AIR Online 2022 SC 969