Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.59 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 165 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Abinash Chandra Bose vs Bimal Kumar Sen And Anr. on 12 May, 1961
A photocopy was considered by the appellate court. In the
cross examination, PW-1 has further stated that some portion
of that land have been bought by Makhan Malakar and the
other portion has not been sold and continued to be
Crl.Rev.P.66 of 2014 Page 6 of 10
possessed by him. According to him, the accused persons
forged his signature and caused damage and loss.
Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel has referred to a series
of decisions of the apex court on the limitation of interference
in the appeal when is directed against the order of acquittal.
From the catena of judgments, Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned
counsel has made a distinction between the ordinary appeal
from the judgment of conviction and the appeal from the
judgment of acquittal. He has emphasized that unless the
appreciation of evidence by the trial court is found to be
perverse or in total derogation of the procedural propriety,
the appellate court shall not interfere in the decision as
appealed against, even if another view is possible. Mr. Kar
Bhowmik, learned counsel has raised a specific question that
when the prosecution has not raised any objection or
reservation that they are deprived of opportunity by the trial
court to adduce any evidence or to bring evidence, in such
circumstances the appellate court should not direct the re-
trial to fill up the lacuna located in this regard. Mr. Kar
Bhowmik, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the
apex court in Abinash Chandra Bose vs. Bima1 Krishna Sen
reported in AIR 1966 SC 1160 where the Apex court had
occasion to observe that in a case where there is no
complaint that the trial court has not given the prosecution
full opportunity to adduce all available evidence in support
of their case, the appellate court should not give the direction
Crl.Rev.P.66 of 2014 Page 7 of 10
for retrial. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel has further
submitted that Section 165 of the Evidence Act does not
substitute the trial Judge as the prosecutor. His duty is very
limited and focused to remove the ambiguity at the time of
recording the evidence and that to for unearthing the truth.
Finally, Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that
there was no proof that the petitioners forged the said title
deed dated 04.09.1999 by the accused persons. Even it
appears from the note appended to the said title deed that
there was no signature of the complainant (PW-1) in the
deed, but in the body of the deed his name had appeared as
the executants, but no signature of the complainant is
subscribed there. The space is left vacant.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 372 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 401 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1