JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN INDIA

The verdict of the Supreme Court reducing the punishment awarded to Govindachami, the accused in the Soumya murder case raises some pertinent questions regarding the functioning of our judicial system.

I always used to wonder how such difference verdicts can be delivered by different courts. As far as I understand the appellate courts only consider the evidences already seen by the lower courts and the arguments made before it while deciding on the appeal. If that be the case, how is it that the appellate court comes to a different conclusion? It can only mean that either the judge at the lower court or the appellate has not seen the case in the entirety. When the appellate court reverses the order of the lower court, should not accountability be  fixed on the lower court judge for passing a wrong order?

In the instant case the trial court judge was convinced that based on the evidences presented and arguments made, it was proved beyond doubt that the accused had committed the crime and hence the maximum punishment was awarded to him. The High court while considering the appeal had concurred with the opinion of the trial court and the sentence was confirmed. How come that the Division Bench in the Supreme court arrived at a different judgement based on the same evidence and arguments? Who is at fault here? Whose accountability should be fixed? Or is it that the judges are not accountable to anybody and they can interpret the law according to their whims and fancies?

 It is high time this aspect has been looked into by the Apex court, National Law Commission etc.If this is ensured we can reduce the time taken by each case in coming to a final conclusion. Because of the differing judgements by different courts, the appeals become an almost  endless procedure, causing heavy burden on the courts.