 I at least said it was all mesmerizing and there was a lot of demand that the session would have been in English. I would just ask you since you are so thorough and your entire focus was how to funnel the facts or to focus the fact in a pyramid structure if this session was to be in English and I just asked you to sum it up how you have to make an appeal in just five minutes for those who have missed the other way around let's have it in five minutes in an English at all. What how has to be done? As I started I'll repeat it. Appeals are of three categories. One appeals against conviction. Second appeals against equitable. One can easily say that these constitute almost 95% of criminal appeals. The other 5% of criminal appeals are those which are under special statutes where you are allowing different orders to be challenged but those are only in special statutes which provide for the only redressal and only challenge is under an appeal. So why by and large focusing only on the appeals of against acquittal or conviction I had started by saying that the recent judgment of Supreme Court where it talks of asking the lawyer what was reported was the judges asking the lawyer to narrate only the facts and like a fiction writer don't lose sight of the fact. So what I had started by saying was that that's only reiterating what has always been the version. Appeal is different from any other challenge. Appeal is a statute providing you a reappraisal of evidence. So the court can on the same set of facts and evidence find a different judgment. A different conclusion can be brought on that. So you are talking of reappraisal of evidence. So if there is a reappraisal of evidence if we want the judge to look at the evidence in the manner in which we want him to look because we are challenging and assailing the findings of the trial court or the first appellate court it is imperative for us to don't let him stray on the trial court judgment or the impugned judgment. Reason being every judgment has its own reasons and once reasons are given this is a way of looking at the evidence. So rather than allowing the appellate court to look at the evidence in the manner in which you want you will be giving him the fodder to look at the evidence in which the impugned judge impugned judgment has looked. So to keep him under check and hand hold him across the path you need to keep it to the way in which you want him to look at. For that purposes one must marshal the facts and facts must be so marshal that because in a criminal appeal you are talking of an incident that has happened an incident which how it unfolded how the event unfolded and not just that how things have been recorded in the evidence. So you need to take the judge through say at nine o'clock so and so is stated to have said this or done this and at nine fifteen information reaches the police and nine twenty the police party leave their police station and go to the spot at nine thirty five or nine forty they reach this is the first thing that they recorded this is the DD entry and the how it was recorded and information sent by the PCR or the police or whatever. So that narration must have a time flow once you have and that in your grip you and you are unfolding the events to the judge you are basically trying to relay a story you are creating a picture before him a Drishyam before him so when you are creating that picture before him you are going to have him see it in your way you would want him to have because you are going as per the evidence and you are telling this is the evidence and how the evidence has brought out the unfolding of the facts in the meantime you'll have to interspersed this narration with the important steps that take place under the process the process could be the the CRPC process or what the normal like going to a hospital or getting the mlc then the doctor has examined and the doctor has sent him for an x-ray or doctor has sent for stitches or something or anything of that sort so the process could be either either those prescribed under the CRPC or procedure as prescribed under the the normal process which takes place in human life. So I said at that point of time that this narration is a must because then the judge also is convinced that this storytelling that you are doing is culled out from this volume of evidence which is before him and he starts trusting your way of looking that's the practical side of it if you are so well versed with the facts the judge is convinced see law takes always takes a back seat when the facts are there law cannot act in vacuum law has to act on facts the law is there already there it is the appreciation of facts which comes in and when you narrate the facts and you will be storytelling it in your own version articulating it in your own manner you will also interspersed with the human behavior what is necessary what is the mens rea required whether I had the animus to kill the person either I had the animus to hit the person whether I had the animus to cheat the person all those things will start flowing a b c d and in that the stream from Gangotri till Bay of Bengal will start flowing in that that fashion after that comes your leading the person to the evidence what's the evidence in the evidence I had said that you will need to check the omissions also what the prosecution should have done and they have not done so take care of those omissions also and inform the court that this is where I have not had a fair trial so I am challenging that that there is unfairness in trial I am and I am constitutionally entitled to a fair trial then comes trying to interpose the different evidences and the aspects of of what's the inconsistency in testimony besides the inconsistency in testimony you will also show if the testimony of a person how it is belied otherwise by documents etc by the exhibits which are there in this entire exercise I said that I have developed as a habit over the years breaking the testimony that a particular person a particular witness may be relevant for six points I don't believe that a person should continually read from the page one till page X his entire testimony like just like a story book and the end and then keep it aside no you want your appeal to be heard you want to show how you are right your understanding of the situation is right and the impugned judgment is wrong so you pick out you break the testimony into comfortable convenient consumable pieces you pick out that part and then juxtapose it with the relevant one to show and highlight your point that's what I had mentioned and the human reactions and human behavior because that's a mens rea is an important aspect when criminal law you will need to show how something is incredible or something is unbelievable or something is incorrect all those aspects will come in at that time of your argument so don't bring in your argument as a cart before the horse it has to be the horse first give the facts then carry the load of your arguments your arguments will hit the nail on the head once the facts have been absorbed by the judge in the proper manner in the manner in which you want him I believe that is what I had said and I had also said please bear in mind that as an appellate court there is a presumption there is a presumption that the impugned order is valid and is right is justified so you have an uphill task so when you have an uphill task save your breath and then go slow wait for reactions to come from the court because if you rush it or you make it very dreary and a drudgery you will lose the impact that's on the practical side of it obviously each one to himself how you wish to point to your case that's what I said I I hope Mr. Chaturth