- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) In this case the appellant has been convicted of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code besides S. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Sentence of RI for 3 years on the 1st count and lesser sentence for the other counts have been imposed by the Sessions court. When he filed the appeal in the High court, after narrating the facts in paras l and 2 the High court proceeded to consider the merits of the case in the following sentences: "Prosecution in support of its case has examined altogether 8 witnesses. Three defence witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the accused. Public Witness 2 Raghunath Singh, Public Witness 3 Roop Narayan Sharma and Public Witness 4 Ram Narayan are witnesses to the occurrence. Public Witness 2 is the Head Constable. Public Witness 4 is Constable whereas Public Witness 3 is Assistant Sub-inspector of Police. They have consistently stated in their evidence that it was the appellant who fired at the police party from a gun and when the police party retaliated, he along with another accused person surrendered. Gun as also cartridges were recovered from the possession of this appellant. 30 i do not find any contradiction in the evidence of this witness and the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution inspires confidence. In the result, I do not find annulment in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. "
(3.) Various arguments had been addressed concerning the merits of the case and also alternatively pleaded that offence under Section 307 cannot, from any angle, be sustained. We are sorry to note that the High court has not bestowed its attention or consideration as an appellate court is required to do. It cannot be forgotten that the appellate court' s Jurisdiction is coextensive with that of the trial court in the matter of assessment, appraisal and appreciation of the evidence and also to determine the disputed issues. Such an approach is not made by the High court as per the impugned judgment. It seems to us that the High court adopted an angle as though it was considering a revision petition. In the interest of justice we deem it necessary that the appeal must be heard and disposed of afresh in accordance with law.;