What legal principles the session judge should follow while deciding criminal appeal?

Introduction

The appellate process in criminal cases is a vital mechanism to ensure justice, safeguard rights, and maintain legal integrity in India. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), accused persons have the opportunity to challenge lower court judgments through appeals. However, not every grievance qualifies for appellate intervention. Indian criminal law outlines specific grounds for appeal supported by constitutional guarantees of due process and demands reasoned judgments from appellate courts. This article explores these principles in detail to help legal practitioners, law students, and justice seekers understand the appellate framework.

Grounds for Criminal Appeal in Indian Law

When a criminal appeal is filed, it must be grounded in identifiable and legally recognized errors or issues in the trial court’s decision. The key grounds commonly invoked include:

Print Page

Basic principles for grant of temporary injunction

This Court in Wander Ltd. (supra), while dealing with appeals against orders granting or refusing a prayer for interlocutory injunction, did reiterate that the same, being in exercise of judicial discretion, the appellate court ought not interfere therewith and  substitute its own discretion except where such discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the Court whose order has been appealed from, had ignored the settled principles of law, regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. It was enunciated, that appeal against exercise of discretion is an appeal on principle and the appellate court would not reassess the materials and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below, if it was reasonably possible on the materials available. It was held as well, that the appellate Court in such a situation would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion of the Court below, if made reasonably and in a judicial manner, solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage, it would have come to a contrary conclusion. It was proclaimed that an interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of the parties which may appear on a prima facie examination of a case. It was held that the prayer for grant of interlocutory injunction, being at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence, it is required to act on certain well-settled principles of administration of such interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. Referring to the fundamental object of interlocutory injunction, this Court noted with approval that the need for such protection of the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against any injury resulting from the restraint on the exercise of his rights, as sought for, which he could not be adequately compensated. The need of one, thus was required to be compared against the other, to determine the balance of convenience to ensure an appropriate exercise of discretion for an interim remedy as suited to a particular fact situation.

Bombay High Court

Sharma Realty Pvt. Ltd. And 2 ... vs Vinod Muktinath Sharma on 21 January, 2016

Bench: K.R. Sriram

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION 




                                                                                         COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO.74 OF 2015




                                                                                 WITH

COMPANY APPLICATION (L) NO.114 OF 2015

   

                                                                           Citation:2016(2) ALLMR427

Print Page

Whether plaintiff can prove a fact even though he has not examined himself?

 In the case before us, there is clear and cogent evidence
on the side of the plaintiff/appellant that there has been
structural alteration in the premises rented out to the
respondents without his consent. Attempt by the
defendants/respondents to establish otherwise has been found
to be totally non-acceptable to the trial court as well as the first
appellate court. Material alteration of a property is not a fact
confined to the exclusive/and personal knowledge of the owner.
It is a matter of evidence, be it from the owner himself or any
other witness speaking on behalf of the plaintiff who is
conversant with the facts and the situation. PW-1 is the vendor
of the plaintiff, who is also his power of attorney. He has stated
in unmistakable terms that there was structural alteration in
violation of the rent agreement. PW-2 has also supported the
case of the plaintiff. Even the witnesses on behalf of the

defendant, partially admitted that the defendants had effected
some structural changes.
13. Be that as it may, the question whether there is a
structural alteration in a tenanted premises is not a fact limited
to the personal knowledge of the owner. It can be proved by
any admissible and reliable evidence. That burden has been
successfully discharged by the plaintiff by examining PWs-1
and 2. The defendants could not shake that evidence. In fact,
that fact is proved partially from the evidence of the
defendants themselves, as an admitted fact. Hence, only the
trial court came to the definite finding on structural alteration.
That finding has been endorsed by the first appellate court on
re-appreciation of the evidence, and therefore, the High Court
in second appeal was not justified in upsetting the findingwhich is a pure question of fact. We have no hesitation to note
that both the questions of law framed by the High Court are not
substantial questions of law. Even if the finding of fact is wrong,
that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong
finding should stem out on a complete misreading of evidence
or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. Safest
approach on perversity is the classic approach on the

reasonable man’s inference on the facts. To him, if the
conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is
possible, there is no perversity. If not, the finding is perverse.
Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not

perversity.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2015
DAMODAR LAL ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT (S)
Dated;January 5, 2016
KURIAN, J.:
Citation;(2016) 3 SCC 78

Print Page

When first appellate court is last court of facts?

 ‘Perversity’ has been the subject matter of umpteen
number of decisions of this Court. It has also been settled by

several decisions of this Court that the first appellate court,
under Section 96 of The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is the last
court of facts unless the findings are based on evidence or are
perverse.
10. In Krishnan v. Backiam and another 
(2007) 12 SCC 190
, it has been held
at paragraph-11 that:
“11.It may be mentioned that the first appellate
court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of
facts. The High Court in second appeal under
Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the
findings of fact recorded by the first appellate
court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the
findings of fact of the first appellate court can be
challenged in second appeal on the ground that
the said findings are based on no evidence or are
perverse, but even in that case a question of law
has to be formulated and framed by the High
Court to that effect. …”
11. In Gurvachan Kaur and others v. Salikram (Dead)
Through Lrs.(2010) 15 SCC 530, at paragraph-10, 
this principle has been
reiterated:
“10.It is settled law that in exercise of power
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of
fact recorded by the first appellate court which is
the final court of fact, unless the same is found to
be perverse. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2015
DAMODAR LAL ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT (S)
Dated;January 5, 2016
KURIAN, J.:
Citation;(2016) 3 SCC 78

Print Page

When supreme court entertain appeals against interlocutory orders?

 This Court does not normally entertain appeals against interlocutory
orders. In the case of trademarks, however, keeping in perspective the endemic
delay in concluding cases/suits in India because of the exponentially increasing
docket explosion, temporary ad interim injunctions are of far reaching
consequences, oftentimes effectively deciding the lis and the disputes
themselves. Possibly for this reason ‘Leave’ has already been granted in the
present Appeal. However, it is now well entrenched in our jurisprudence that
the Appellate Court should not flimsily, whimsically or lightly interfere in the
exercise of discretion by a subordinate court unless such exercise is palpably
perverse. Perversity can pertain to the understanding of law or the appreciation
of pleadings or evidence. We shall restrict ourselves to reference in Wander
Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 Supp SCC 727, wherein it has been adumbrated
that the Appellate Court ought not to “reassess the material and seek to reach a
conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached
by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court
would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion
under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial
stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been
exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the
appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference
with the trial court’s exercise of discretion”. We shall be careful not to
transgress these frontiers.

 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1018 OF 2006
Neon Laboratories Ltd. ... Appellant
Versus
Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
Dated;October 5, 2015.
Citation;(2016)2 SCC 672

Print Page

Whether revisional court can set aside order of Magistrate if his order is not perverse?

Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The revisional court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.

Supreme Court of India

Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr on 16 January, 2015

Bench: Kurian Joseph, Abhay Manohar Sapre

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2015

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 6927/2013]

Citation;2015(1)BomCR(Cri)593, 2015CriLJ1259, 

 2015CriLJ1259, , (2015)3SCC123,

Print Page

When appreciation of evidence will be perverse?

Safest
approach on perversity is the classic approach on the

reasonable man’s inference on the facts. To him, if the
conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is
possible, there is no perversity. If not, the finding is perverse.
Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not
perversity.

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2015
DAMODAR LAL V SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS .
KURIAN, J.:
Citation;AIR2016 SC 262

Print Page

Whether wrong finding of fact will constitute question of law?

Be that as it may, the question whether there is a
structural alteration in a tenanted premises is not a fact limited
to the personal knowledge of the owner. It can be proved by
any admissible and reliable evidence. That burden has been
successfully discharged by the plaintiff by examining PWs-1
and 2. The defendants could not shake that evidence. In fact,
that fact is proved partially from the evidence of the
defendants themselves, as an admitted fact. Hence, only the
trial court came to the definite finding on structural alteration.
That finding has been endorsed by the first appellate court on
re-appreciation of the evidence, and therefore, the High Court
in second appeal was not justified in upsetting the finding
which is a pure question of fact. We have no hesitation to note
that both the questions of law framed by the High Court are not
substantial questions of law. Even if the finding of fact is wrong,
that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong
finding should stem out on a complete misreading of evidence
or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. Safest
approach on perversity is the classic approach on the

reasonable man’s inference on the facts. To him, if the
conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is
possible, there is no perversity. If not, the finding is perverse.
Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not
perversity.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2015
DAMODAR LAL 
V
SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS .
KURIAN, J.:
Citation;AIR2016 SC 262

Print Page