So many people have asked me, as to how is it reasonable that a decision rendered by one court could be reversed by another. That is to say if a person is found guilty by the court after trial, what are the justifications in letting him free by the appeal court in the same case.
Here is an attempt to disuss this position-
The courts of first instance are ordinarily ones which record evidence and dwell on the questions of fact. Any decision given by the trial court is keeping predominantly in view the evidence recorded and the fundamental principles of law.
Law vests a right of appeal before the appellate court to the party losing in the trial. But the scope of appeal is usually restricted to the errors and irregularities of the judgment (of the trial court). Re-appreciation of evidence is done only if the trial court while passing the judgment has ommitted to consider relevant portions of the evidence or based the same on perversities. The application of law (by way of statutes and case laws) is the major concern in the appeal courts.
While still holding that the facts in issue against the appellant, there are chances for him to be let free on technical grounds.
The prime reason is: the law firmly believes that only those proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt should be faulted.
Here is an attempt to disuss this position-
The courts of first instance are ordinarily ones which record evidence and dwell on the questions of fact. Any decision given by the trial court is keeping predominantly in view the evidence recorded and the fundamental principles of law.
Law vests a right of appeal before the appellate court to the party losing in the trial. But the scope of appeal is usually restricted to the errors and irregularities of the judgment (of the trial court). Re-appreciation of evidence is done only if the trial court while passing the judgment has ommitted to consider relevant portions of the evidence or based the same on perversities. The application of law (by way of statutes and case laws) is the major concern in the appeal courts.
While still holding that the facts in issue against the appellant, there are chances for him to be let free on technical grounds.
The prime reason is: the law firmly believes that only those proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt should be faulted.
7 comments:
this is really a 'urupadiyana' post unlike numerous posts of mine. :)
Wow.
Vasu why dont you can try to explain the basic tenets of the constitution.
Why not start with Artcle 356?
(i can hear you say 'mavane kavutharadhileye irukaan da':-))
Appuram Article 356 enna achu?
Namma Chakkara direct a CM agaradhukku sattathula edhuna vazhi irukka?:-)
Can we pass an act which says anyone who has worked in Ramco, studied in National College Trichy, has a son by name Anirudh and who has the support of all the bloggers can be a CM?
che.. evlo easya irukum....
Vasu - enga ponalum pasanga kalasaranunga... i dunno where these guys caught this CM thingy..
Pani unnai ozhikkanumnnu kanganam katti kittu irukkaanga pola
or does CM mean chandramukhi?
Vasu, picking up from what you attempted to clarify, another common question is why is that the courts take such a long time to come up with a judgement.
Why is this the case only with INdian Judiciary!!!
While for a common man even to hear a case that he has filed it takes years. However, in case of influential people, the cases are heard and verdict passed the same day the case was filed!!! - Equality?????!!!
Manoj,
Thanks a lot for this..
Your comment has given me the idea for my next post.
:-)
Post a Comment