 Good evening, friends. Amongst us, it gives us immense pleasure. We have Mohit Mathur, a known name in the field of fraternity of law and beyond. Similar and akin to our sessions of beyond law CLC, his way of hammering the points, projecting the same has always been well received amongst the bench and the bar. And therefore, when we all talked about, we read that judgment when the Honourable Supreme Court recently said that what is a way forward to understand the things, how you have to make the appeals, how you have to prepare it, what are the points of presentation? As they say that art of filtration of facts and law, and once you are in a criminal appeal, how to marshal these evidence? These all aspects have their own nativities, which with the flux of time one learns. But if they say that if you have a good guru, and especially in the days of virtual era, who can make you understand those things, is the best way forward. And despite the fact that he's the President of the Delhi Bar Association, Delhi High Court Bar Association, and a senior advocate with the practice, I've been trying to connect with him. Normally, his associates were being connected. Yet, his passion to pay back to the society speaks volume. And without taking much time, I'll request Mr Mohit Mathur, who has joined with us, to take the session forward, make us understand. And for the audience who are watching us live on the YouTube, Facebook, and those who are connected with us on the Zoom. Large part of the session would also be in Hindi because we have been trying to take that process forward. Only with an endeavor so that people can understand things in the right way. We had been receiving requests if a session is a little mixed. And Mr Mohit Mathur's demand for English and Hindi is the same. And after knowing this, he had some routes connected with Chandigarh. And therefore, they say that I cannot say the like-minded meets. But like-minded, yes, for the purposes of sharing knowledge, do definitely meet. That is the common essence. And as they say that I was just hearing one of the sessions of Kunal Shah, the credit donor. He said that friends are just like the dotted lines. They connect and they make the lines. And in that process of making lines forward, I request Mr Mohit to share his knowledge, insights, and we are all eager to hear about that. Over to you, Mr Mohit. Thank you, Vikas Ji. You have praised me too much. I don't know whether I am actually deserving it or not. But yes, you are right. After a few years in practice, one starts feeling where it's not, I would say, payback time, but it's time to continue working. And we want this institution to work. So I hope that we can contribute in that. With that, I had requested Vikas Ji that I like such topics that we can apply. Because law, all of us know, we will find everything in books. The only question is presenting it and articulating your points in a manner, as the Supreme Court has said, how to present criminal appeal in front of them. So with that in mind, if I may be permitted to say that appeals under criminal law would generally be of two types. One, where the appeal is against a conviction. Second would be an appeal against an acquittal. There is a very narrow area, a very small dimension of appeals where special statutes, they have made all orders and judgments to be challenged by way of an appeal. I'll just keep that as the last part. But by and large, we are dealing with appeals where we are talking of either challenging an order of conviction or an order of acquittal. Appeals in the hierarchy of courts are generally either an appeal from a magistrate's court to the court of sessions, or from the court of sessions to the high court, or lastly from the high court to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court in that recent case, which Vikas Ji has mentioned, just as Chandrachudra, just as Surya Kanthwala, where they said and they asked the council to articulate the appeal in a manner in which they can understand it more as a story. And they asked the council to basically marshal the facts. In criminal law, we are dealing with two very important aspects. In any case, one, the factual part of it. And secondly, what's the human behavior with regard to such situations? Because it's the reaction of the human mind and the human himself which actually makes the criminal law the case, how it is put up and how it is prosecuted. To understand that, I would always feel that what the Supreme Court has said, and it is just now being discussed more, actually was always the case and that's how always a criminal appeal needs to be addressed before the court. In the trial courts, the cases come up as the first point of evidence and discussion and appreciation of that evidence. Please, every council should bear it in mind that when you are in an appeal court and you are addressing the appeal court, there is a presumption of the judgment of the trial court or the court below, which is under challenge to be proper. So you are in an appeal basically, though it may be a statutory appeal or a special leave to appeal, the basic bedrock is that the court in appeal is presuming that the court in appeal is presuming that the court in appeal is presuming that the court below has made the decision that it is proper. So you will have to marshal your facts and the law in your, the points in your favor in such a manner that the court is basically taken by you through the facts and the law to your favor. So you have to run the court in such a manner that the court doesn't lose interest in your case and doesn't digress from the point you are taking. Because if you allow the court to digress from your chosen path, then you are in for trouble. And one of the difficulties which is faced is is our tendency is that we don't get all the things clearly in the appeal. And even in some pleadings, though it is not a mandate that you should plead properly, but it's a good reckoner. When you write the grounds of your appeal, you can elaborate it later. But when you draft an appeal, you draft and put in the points so that later on, and when you see those points, then you are able to understand this is on the academic side. But on a practical side, the most important aspect which I have learned over the years is narration of facts. Please, everyone should bear in mind, every lawyer should know, an appeal court can reappraise evidence. So if it is a reappraisal of evidence, what needs to be told to the court is more of fact and not what the trial judge has done. And it has a practical problem. If you read according to the trial judge's order, then the trial judge or the impugned order, if I may say impugned judgment, that impugned judgment would be taking and appreciating and presenting the same fact against you. So rather than giving the court the presentation of a fact which is tainted or written in a manner where there is a semblance of things going against you, it's always better to give the facts from the evidence straight away. The way I learned it was and I have been presenting it is always in a form of a flow chart of first the timeline, what the initial case, how it unfolded, how the events unfolded to become the case, that in a criminal appeal, how did the first point of information came? Were there different diary entries, the GD entries, general diary entries? What information came first in the police? What was the first step that was taken? What did the police do when they received that information? How did these steps unfold? That narration of the timeline is important to put in the mind of the court how the picture against you was created because if you have to assail that picture at a later point of time with the evidence, the court must know the unfolding of the events especially with the chronology. Second aspect which while narrating facts to the court is concerned is one must explain where and at what places, what point of time, the important steps which are the statutory steps in the process or in the criminal procedure court have taken place. The court in appeal must be apprised that this is the background, that background or narration of facts is important because unless and until the court is aware of what the facts are there is just no point in trying to apply or push what the law is without the facts there because law cannot operate in vacuum, that we must know and we must understand very, very clearly. This is similar even if you are trying to challenge an acquittal then also you have to inform how promptly things were done, what promptitude was there and narration of the initial complaint etc. Either which way the narration of facts must come from the respective evidences, what have come before the trial court must be informed to the court in the appeal so that you can assail the impugned order at a later point of time. The appraisal of evidence is the stage where you crash out your arguments but the factual matrix needs to be known to the court and if you have made a timeline sort of thing then it becomes easy for the court in appreciating facts, it becomes easy for you in relating the facts to the court and if you want to do a cross-reference then it becomes easy for you. Second, it is an unsaid thing, if you are narrating the facts properly and you have marshaled the facts properly, in a general tendency court, the counsel before me is prepared fully and once you are prepared fully you are not likely to deter from where you are standing, you know your point and you would be able to handle all that is put to you. That's the practical side of it because that bias comes by prepared. Before we start pointing out deficiencies we must also prepare a chart of the evidence and when I say a chart of the evidence is that you have in your hands a list from PW1 till the last PW, anything important in 313 statement or thereafter the defense evidence, defense witnesses, that should also be the names and the relevance of that witness should also be a ready fact which you should just as a story narrated to the judge that PW1 is so-and-so, he's relevant for such and such purpose, PW2 is relevant for such and such purpose this is, us say an idea is that the court need not and you need not waste your precious time on irrelevant witnesses and when I say irrelevant witnesses certain witnesses are just formal witnesses in the course of the process of collection of evidence before the trial court. Then you must be able to marshal out that these are the key witnesses whom I wish to emphasize upon. Once you have laid down this chart or before the court the next step comes in what are your basic points and those basic points it's always better depending upon the case you must give the time to the court to absorb your point one of the common mistakes is you have a valid point but you speed it up so much or you dwell on it so much that you don't let it get absorbed in that succinct manner in which it should go so sometimes we lose the interest of the judge in our own succinct and in telling that we repeat the same thing 3-4 times so the judge loses interest in that second time we rush it so quickly that it doesn't even absorb the point so the necessary pauses in your reading of the evidence one must be very very careful and the homework should be so prepared that rather than letting the judge sleep over the key part take him to the actually the important part only and this becomes very important in the serious cases where the testimonies of so-called eyewitnesses or the investigating officers are very important and sometimes also important when you want to challenge on the points of when your issues are on the contradictions you ensure that the judge spends the requisite time on that aspect in comparing the testimonies of the people you wish to rely upon at the same time because in an appeal against acquittal sometimes you want to emphasize upon the point which the judge in the impugned judgment has overlooked so those aspects also unless and until you are cautious enough to tread slowly and gradually on the in the appeal you just might skip it and miss it reading of evidence to the court is also necessary because you are in an appeal wanting the learned appellate court to reappraise it just as we commonly say that two views are possible then the benefit should accrue to the accused so when reappraisal is allowed in the appeal then it is very important to pay attention to the evidence and project that evidence in your way because you just might be able to convince the appellate court the other way of looking at the evidence before 2009 appeal against acquittal means cheez ki hamar pass gunjesh bhot kam thi it had to be really perverse but today with the victims rights coming in the concept of victimology coming in and a statutory right of appeal being given to the victim under 372 even at the appeal in an appeal against acquittal a reappraisal is possible and reappraisal can be done provided while reading evidence another part which is important is breaking the testimony into the parts and those areas just as a testimony a pw k 3-4 aspects or hosakta uska ek aspect jo aap usko question kar raheho in the superior in the appellate court wo kisi aur ke nizbath hai second aspect ek 4th witness kizh niya relevant hai ya document ke saath kumpair karna hai aur ek tisra part uska jo hai evidence ka wo kisi aur cheez ke saath aapko project karna hai ya aapko unnatural conduct dikhana hai witness ka in a case jo haan meri family member ko attack kya jaar hai aur mai bhak jaun so that's an unnatural conduct of a witness dohz aspects to aapko dikhane padein ye aalag alak kar kya so i always call it breaking the testimony into consumable pieces ye main hai kapane liye bana rakh hai tarika sochne ka that i break the testimony into the digestible pieces the consumable pieces konsak kis cheez yaga hai relevant hai and while discussing this testimony it's also relevant sometimes to emphasize on the human psychology the human behavior because Ben Sria in criminal law has a very important role and you would find um team number of judgments which talk of the fact of the testimony whether the testimony is reliable unreliable credible incredible on the basis of what is before you how a normal prudent man would react how a prudent person would react to a given situation so since that is one of the issues it's always better to break the testimony into smaller parts and read in juxtaposition compared to the each of the parts that the point that you wish to raise rather than reading one a go me a testimony parli and then you try to show it that pw2 ye kata ye 4 ye kata 6 ye kata it doesn't give the right flavor it's like ke eki cheez ko aap pesh karne ka tarika jo hai wo tashtri me aap saari cheez hai kattha daal do plate me it may not look that beautiful but if you put it and decorate it in the garnish it on the on your plate all those things in a manner which it's pleasing to the eye similarly your articulation of an appeal should be pleasing to the ears it should not be coarse it should not be horse the it should come out in a very very smooth fashion jay say supreme court ne kaha ke tell us like a story that you should tell it to us like a story that the i think they use the word like a fiction writer now what they actually meant was that when they when you present a case it starts setting into your mind and fitting the place so the entire puzzle it starts fitting into the smaller pieces start fitting in these are basic aspects where the factual part is then told to the court i have always advised my junior colleagues or whosoever has ever asked me wait for the reaction which is a very important aspect in an appeal because you have an uphill task you are assailing a judgment and in supreme court the task is even bigger for the reason that there are judgments of the there are two courts below who may have gone against you so when you are approaching an appellate court you must wait for that reaction to come so that you can answer it and not leave any doubt in the mind of the judge unanswered and reason is of a doubt going in your favor appellate court may the doubt will not go in your favor because there is a judgment against you so you must address all possible doubts that come in the mind of the judge or are likely to combine likely to come in the mind of the judge you must concentrate on the aspect of how the judge is reacting to what you are presenting so if you are presenting the facts and the judge has a query coming it's always advisable that you wait for that query respond to that query and then proceed further this is a very very common anomaly that we tend to rush into our scheme of things in our notes we just want to skim through it and we feel that we have dumped everything with the judge the judge should now filter out so this filtration should happen simultaneously and if I may be allowed to say you should be able to control that filtration because you want the judge to look in the perspective in which you are looking at your fact matter because you have challenged an order and you want him to look at it in a different perspective which the trial the trial court or the first appellate court may not have looked into so in the appellate stage you must what we commonly we were told when we started our profession was hand hold the judge into and lead him into the direction in which you want him to go I know it's easier said than done done but still that is what the endeavor must be that is what the endeavor should be and that's the only way an appeal can be taken care next comes in an appeal is an important aspect of highlighting barring the inconsistencies in the evidence also the inconsistencies of the facts of the case with law and a very very recent example which happened with us in a case the post mortem report was silent on the cause of death since it's a matter which is still subjudice in the sense that the order has not been pronounced but the minute this was highlighted to the court that in a case of homicide the cause of death has not been described the reaction changed that how under law will you bring an act an act which has not been seen by anyone with no eyewitnesses how would that fall under homicide unless and until there is there explanation without an explanation of the cause of death or without an expert opinion on the cause of death how do you justify the conviction that's just on the aside it's a matter still it's awaiting judgment so I don't want to say anything further on it but these are the points of law which you will need to raise after you have gone through the evidence and the judge has absorbed the evidence which you want him to appreciate how you wish to show it show it to him I'm reminded of a case long long back sometime in the early 90s where in supreme court they questioned the point that when the police as I said when you have narrated the fact on the issue of what is an in first information report is the first information report necessarily to be the one which has been transcribed under 154 in the police diary as the FIR or could it even be a police report or any information recorded by the police received by the police on which the police has acted that was a case where the the council argued that first information means the first information if the police has acted upon it then that becomes the first information report so on that legal point the supreme court appreciated and held in the favor of the acu that the first information was the one which put set into motion because if the narration of facts were such that the unfolding of events had started with the first information received telephonically on the by the police and they started their process the investigative process then it doesn't need to be transcribed in the form of a 154 it should have been but it had not been doesn't matter that becomes 154 so these points of law if we start giving the judge that this is one two three these are my points of legal propositions the interest doesn't arise in them unless and until you are able to hit with the evidence and then you compare it's compared with the law with the facts and then there is a better appreciation of the same point which the the appeal court should according to you because you are the one who's impressing upon the court to consider it and then react to it in your favor so because you want him to react to your in his in your favor you got to keep hand holding him don't let him go stray into a territory which may suddenly become uncomfortable for you or inconvenient for you to answer if factual aspects you have covered then bring in the law because then the interest in the judge the query in the judge has already awakened it has risen once it has risen then the judge will come to your side there is a there is a directional change which will happen because he started thinking in your favor I just received a message Mr. Chhatra should I respond to it right now do you want me to respond right now to this somebody is asked about highlighting about an appeal in acquittal in an abetment case you will take the question at the end otherwise the entire link will go okay for those who watch the youtube they will understand that the questions are taken at the end at the end of the okay okay thank you so facts first as the chronology evidence thereafter as recorded in the court and I just missed out one thing while you have read out the evidence and before you step on to the law if there are certain omissions in the prosecution case or conduction or conducting of the case by the prosecution that should also come when the evidence is come because there may be evidences which ought to have been recorded and have not been recorded or may have been that the police has collected evidence or material from people whose signatures are appended or who have tendered that evidence but they have not been examined in court so all those omissions also in the evidence must be informed to the court at that point of time itself when you are narrating the evidence and relating the evidence and mentioning the facts reason being it also highlights at that point how there has been lack of fairness in the conducting of the trial we all know fairness in trial is also an important aspect which needs to be seen at the time of an appeal if the court has ever feels that there is lack of fairness in trial that itself has sometimes been a ground to set aside the judgment and send it back remanded back for retrial or sometimes even for that aspect to be covered additional evidence to be recorded or sometimes the acquittal takes place I distinctly recall a case where the mother of the prosecutor's was a key witness she was the first informant she was the as far as her 161 statements were concerned were very important and considered during the point of charge however when the trial took place she was not brought court held that omission to be as an adverse inference under the evidence act against the prosecution because there were certain aspects that she alone could have covered and she she had not come to the court so if there are omissions also you must inform the court at the time when you are relating the evidence that x y or z have not been examined though cited as witnesses or otherwise similar is the case when you are in an appeal against acquittal one may insist that those who could have proved the case against the accused have deliberately been not examined so it's entirely how you put it and how you want the judge to see it so you need to project your case in a manner which suits you and the perception your perception of evidence or your reading of evidence or your understanding of the evidence is what you have to convey to the court and impress upon it so that's the basic outline that one needs to understand when you are dealing with an appeal there have been certain cases where I have had occasion to deal with something I would say abysmally low in percentage but very strange situations there are two provisions in the chapter on appeals which hardly come to anybody's attention one is section 379 that was incorporated only in this act on this code in 1973 you were not there in the earlier code and that was a case where a trial court acquittal is reversed by the high court and a sentence of life or death is awarded then there is a statutory appeal to the supreme court it's not like an SLP though it's a very very few I think stray cases far and few but it's something that one should as a criminal lawyer know another very important aspect which we sometimes overlook when we are dealing with a case of multitude of accused and that's that if there is a person who has come to you whose case falls under 375 or 376 as far as petty cases is concerned or only on the if he has pleaded guilty so one would feel that there is a there's a bar that you cannot go and appeal but please check if there are other accused and if there is an order or judgment passed against them which is an appealable judgment then even the right to appeal accrues to you though as per the sentence it may be a petty case for you individually but it is not so so therefore that aspect of right of appeal under 380 gives you the exception to 375 376 another part which I would be missing out if I don't say is a number of times you would find that there are more than one people who have been convicted or whose appeals come together there's a group of appeals 345 or whatever there is a tendency to go as I me myself if you are in a joint trial and you've been convicted in a joint trial my advice has always been to analyze first who is in conflict with whom and to what extent there is a general tendency of the prosecution will be to pit you against the other but you need to see how best you can avoid any kind of a passing on the buck in just arguments if the evidences to your annuering to your benefit and only if the evidence is annuering to your benefit should you start on that track otherwise sometimes it becomes a difficult proposition where number of people are there the judge sitting in appeal has not seen the demeanor of witnesses has not seen the demeanor of the accused in his court so he tends to see what is happening in the in the arguments now that is a very tricky position because councils may want to impress upon their case while probably rubbishing the case of the others unless and until they sale together or likely to sale together so it's very important to marshal out who all fall in what category and then probably in a categorized manner one can compartmentalize your arguments and present the case like if two people have almost a similar role or if there are two three people who have a likely conflict then they should refrain from adding fuel to fire but keep their arguments to the evidence which is before the court that allows an objectivity in both the arguments as well as in the appreciation of evidence if we try to add to it embellish by making insinuations or passing the back or putting the blame on to somebody else then that doesn't help in an appeal because it only goes on to show sometimes that it is possible that all may have conducted this kind of a act as I started by saying there is a element of certain special statutes there are appeals which are emanating out of special statutes and more so recently you would have found even bail orders coming out of criminal appeals which are something like in ua pa or something of similar nature where the challenge is straight in a criminal appeal from any order in fact even in a domestic violence act it's now an appealable order under section 29 similarly in ua pa it's an appealable order there the the emphasis on your testimonies may perhaps not be in the same manner in which I have discussed though they may be in terms of technically they may be appeals but we are actually not dealing with those appeals as appeals except that the court has the power of an appellate court which means that it's not restricted to any kind of a story where you are not dwelling into the facts basically you can go into facts and to that extent the court is allowed to go into facts and that's why these the the character of the challenge is of an appeal but let's not confuse those things those are very few though often these days one would see that division bench is taking care of a ua pa bail application but that's because of the statute those are statutory appeals so I I don't want to unnecessarily waste the time here of everyone understanding those special statutes and the appeals which arise out of that something why I re-emphasize is we must understand that when we are talking of a criminal appeal by the very nature of criminal law it deals with deprivation of life and liberty so the sincerity the diligence is is underlying it has to be there it doesn't need to be emphasized so when we are dealing with an appeal we must ensure that the liberty of the individual is not taken away without him getting the best chance and in the justice system criminal justice system has to be balanced affording him the opportunity which constitution guarantees him so as councils the duty is far bigger on us one our appeal should be prompt we don't delay because a person's life or liberty that's take two we should have collected all evidence before we all material all papers relevant three we must find out what was initially what was initially pitted against him what came during the trial and how it has been gone against him so to challenge and assail that you'll need to understand all that also what is required is that the first appeal by and large is his statutory right and when it is a statutory right he must be given that right properly and sometimes for that an extra effort needs to be done if during the course of appeal you get information or material which must be brought to the notice of the court then applications under 391 if necessary for reducing additional evidence should also be moved and there are cases and cases and cases where the courts have allowed additional evidences to be brought in in an appeal stage also though in an appeal stage normally the courts are reluctant but if you are able to show that there's going to be a travesty of justice that the justice itself is going to be denied to that person merely because he did not have the ready infrastructure or resources or the right advice to bring those pieces of evidence before the court which could have probably tilted the scales in a different manner so considering all that I always emphasize that one needs to see all those things and present it in the best form of a bouquet or you may call it like presenting a really a delectable plate of goodies before the court to tempt the court and to impress upon the court to accept your version and your perception and your understanding of the evidence so as to basically accept what you are saying so these are the basic things which are required in an appeal and to present the appeal thank you so much for your patience I hope I have not overstepped the time limit be that as it may we are all lawyers they say that it's my brief and it still runs into hundreds of pages number one and number two since a lot of situations were coming that you should speak in English but the way you had mesmerized I thought that let it go with the flow and be that as it may once you go in that particular mood and the way it has been received on the youtube I can just see that people are actually have actually laughed it and they say that the taste of the pudding lies in the eating and I believe that those who have today actually they would say that the pudding was too good you have beaten all the master chefs and like what you rightly said everybody has those same products vegetables are the same spices are the same but how to present that food and how to make it taste is only there as we listen to the food of the grandmother's nose and mother's nose what you have told us today is that I think they will have a delicious lunch on Sunday dinner so they will do it but virtual dinner will be a very lavish platter which is a buffet that people will enjoy. Meanwhile, a question I have, we can take that. This is by Venkatesh Naru Kotha. He was saying that sir can you highlight about the appeal and the acquittal in an abetment? I think Mr. Kotha wants to say that the charge and conviction is of abetting of an offense. Now there are two kinds in abetment also one would be where the abetter is the only accused and there would be cases where the abetter along with the person abetted is also an accused. If I am the only abetter then I need to show from the material that what my conduct and my act was did not actually indicate towards doing of that act because then you have to split the ingredients of the offense against you. The offense in abetment is requiring the instigating aiding or somebody to do that act. So if as an abetter maybe I would say abetment maybe if you are the only an abetter is there then probably it would be something like abetment to suicide or something where the person who tries to commit the suicide was not the or who did commit the suicide is not the offender is no more there. So in a case where only the abetter is the offender then he has to basically divest himself, divorce himself from the act because his conduct and the act will have a bridge. That bridge has to be broken so he has to show that there is and that's why I said when you narrate facts you show by the timeline how the act has happened but he is talked of an appeal in acquittal in abetment. So if it is an acquittal which has happened and you are the person who is assailing that acquittal then your role is to show how his act actually was the act which immediately was the reason for the offending act to take place and that's how the abetter can be roped in because the abetter can only be roped in if it is in close proximity to the act abetted. So if the acquittal has taken place you will need to dig in for the evidence and the way the timeline as I said that you draw a timeline which will show how say at 9 o'clock something happened then at 10 o'clock something happened at 10 o'five there was this duel or a feud or some kind of a tiff which prompted somebody to act at 9 at 10 10 and then 10 15 and then how the unfolding happened. So once you show that chain is intrinsically linked then you will be able to challenge the acquittal because acquittal would have happened only by saying that the person's act has not instigated or aided there is a there is a snap. So you will need to build that snap bridge it and show that there is no snap that's by and large the the principles of presenting an appeal remain the same only thing is the ingredients different ingredients are there of different offenses. So whenever you're dealing with that specific case you'll need to cover that up. I hope that answers Mr. Kota. Question what was posted on the YouTube was we can all say that the appeal is akin to the post-mortem of the case. I don't agree with that. I I I in fact say that appeal is the second opportunity for the lawyers to both make their money as well as to give their insights and perceptions again. They had the chance in the impugned order and they now have the chance to represent it. In a post-mortem we'll only be ripping it apart. The ripping apart is not necessary. That's what I have tried to say all along. You don't need to rip it apart everything. You need to go simply and show your perception because it is a reappraisal of evidence. Post-mortem would be probably too harsh. So meaning thereby you say that once you dive deep you will get the pulse and you can save the person. Mohi Ji session as I earlier said it was all mesmerizing and there was a lot of demand that the session would have been in English be that as it may. I would just ask you since you're so thorough and your entire focus was how to funnel the facts, how 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 5 minutes. For those who have missed the other way around let's have it in 5 minutes in an English. What how it has to be done? As I started I'll repeat it. Appeals are of three categories. One appeals against conviction. Second appeals against acquittal. One can easily say that these constitute almost 95 percent of criminal appeals. The other 5 percent of criminal appeals are those which are under special statutes where you are allowing different orders to be challenged. But those are only 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 the 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 handhold 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 not just that how things have been recorded in the evidence. So you will need to take the judge through say at 9 o'clock so and so is stated to have said this or done this and at 9.15 information reaches the police and 9.20 the police party leave their police station and go to the spot at 9.35 or 9.40 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 Drisham 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 will have to intersperse this narration with the important steps that take place under the process the process could be 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 any other thing 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 is 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 was 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 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 storybook 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 this 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 in 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 an appeal 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 your case that's what I said I I hope Mr. Chaturth that summed it up just reading one of the I was watching one of the sessions of the Heart of Story telling by Ms. Palki Sharma Upadhyay beyond the detail part she speaks very well and she says heart of storytelling is the art of storytelling can be done only when who's a good storyteller and I can vouch upon that you're a good storyteller and it is just like what Sanjay told the same way you have mesmerized people and there is one a query I was reading the case says once the victim gave hostile witness in rape case and case was disposed of in court is there any chance to reopen or any legal remedies not just an uphill task I think uphill climb if the victim herself in the rape case had gone hostile then I think she'd need to first cover her tracks and find out and give a justifiable reason why she lied to the court she is the victim and if she's herself not coming out clean how do you expect any superior court to believe her unless and until she comes out and says these were the compelling circumstances these were the situations where I had to do it and you're talking of something like Zahira the best bakery case it has to be that gross that the situation was that there was no option for the person to do anything you'll need to basically you are touching that that extent second question we will take and that will be the last question because normally people keep on asking the next question would be to the effect that in the normal case we always find that people want young students and lawyers also want to understand that further for understanding of any bail application appeal whether you have to first read the bail acts and statutes or they should read the judgments to understand that this way as they say the right time you have to find out the 10 mistakes it's an appeal also where you have to find the decisions how to do about it and how to go about it what do you say whether the young lawyer should first understand the where the result of these sections or from the judgments he should come out that this is the way to understand the statute because I have always told my own junior colleagues and even those who interned with me that law will come but first any junior any case be it civil criminal anything must know the facts of his or her case if you don't know the facts there is no point in reading any judgment or understanding the judgments or the law you may be the best person knowing the law you may rattle the law left right and center but if you cannot identify that law with your facts you will lose out and recently we did that in one matter in which the prosecutor's had challenged and said about insist by her relatives she complained of that they are facing trial they went on 436 capital A saying that they have suffered half custody now the question which the court saw and understood they noted kept took out a judgment and they brought the judgment to the court saying that if he's done half of the lower part of the sentence it was from three years to seven years so if he is done less than half of the lower part then he should be given the judge in the high court was almost inclined reading only that head note in that part we were we got hold of that judgment we read that judgment and short to the judge one in rape cases the sentence is up to life so life the only fraction is if you calculate life as 20 years is 10 years half of it second 436 capital A leaves aside life and death cases and that judgment thirdly was a case where the trial had been going on for nine years so it was you have to read the facts without facts there is nothing the case is not built on law cases built on facts so that's my advice to everyone if even these youngsters who are doing civil cases why you need to know the facts of your case the judge wants to know there's a presumption that the judge would know the law guide him on the law later if he's not going by the law but give him your facts what's that discretionary relief that you want bail is a discretionary relief you want discretionary relief from the judge you give him the facts point well hammered and often we find in the judgments the we often find in quoting that the judgments are not statutes in fact judgments are on the interpretation of the statutes it may be a different connotation that judgments whether the interpretation we have a judgment of Honourable Mr. Justice Suresh Khan where he speaks of in Dr. Mita's judgment what type of interpretations are there textual interpretation contextual interpretation liberal interpretation so that judgment for the understanding of young lawyers and lawyers that judgment of Dr. Mita is very judgment which explains the contours of interpretation and as you rightly said that we have to first understand the facts apply the statute of history provisions and then third comes the position where you have to apply the judgments these are the three parameters what I've been able to understand and gauge from whatever insights we brought from you and thank you Mr. Mohit it was a such a fascinating session it was thank you so much thank you for allowing me to come I often say that when the speaker is good so we will keep on calling upon you and we will always remember another song which says we will always say that you will have to work and give your sessions out here thank you everyone stay safe stay blessed thank you thank you