cites: 40898663

Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 358270

Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 555422

A. T. Mydeen vs The Assistant Commissioner Customs ... on 29 October, 2021

Hence, at this juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment in the case of A. T. Mydeen vs The Assistant Commissioner Customs reported in 2021 SCC Online SC Page 31 of 42 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:07:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2357/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 1017, "where two different criminal appeals were being heard against two sets of accused, on account of one of them absconding, and decided against two different judgments based upon evidence recorded in separate trials, though for the commission of the same offence, the 3-judge of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court fell 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. The Apex Court held that the High Court's judgment was erroneous and it ought to have distinctly considered and dealt with the evidence of both the trials and then to decide the culpability of the accused persons, the Apex Court said, "The essence of the above synthesis is that 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 co-accused, who has been tried on the basis of evidence recorded in a separate trial, though for the commission of the same offence." The Apex Court held that the High Court committed an error of law in dealing with the evidence of one trial for deciding both the appeals arising out of two separate trials. Stating that it cannot proceed on presumption and assume that everything was identical word to word, Apex Court explained that, "The role of each accused cannot be said to be the same. The same witnesses could have deposed differently in different trials against different accused differently depending upon the complicity or/and culpability of such accused. All these aspects were to be examined and scrutinized by the Appellate Court while dealing with both the appeals separately and the Page 32 of 42 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:07:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2357/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined evidence recorded in the respective trials giving rise to the appeals."

Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 23 - V Nath - Full Document