700 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is true. Now, I do not know how this article 112 will be interpreted by the Supreme Court. We have left it to them to interpret it. They may interpret it in the way in which the Privy Council has interpreted it or they may interpret it in any manner they choose ; either they may put a limited interpretation or they may put a wider interpretation. In case they put a limited interpretation, then I have no doubt about it that sub-clause (c) will have some value. I therefore submit, Sir, that my amendment is such that it meets the exigencies of the cases, satisfies the conscience of some people who object to people being hanged without having any right of appeal. I think it is so worded that the Supreme Court will not administratively or otherwise be overburdened with criminal appeals. I hope my Friends will now withdraw their amendments and accept mine.
Shri C . Subramaniam (Madras : General) : On a point of clarification, as to the implication of the difference of language……
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is too late now.
Mr. President : The Honourable Doctor has not shown in his reply why he makes a distinction between cases in which death sentence has been passed for the first time by the High Court in revision by way of enhancement of sentence and cases in which death sentence is passed in reversal of a judgment of acquittal.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : The case of an appeal against enhancement of sentence differs from a case of an appeal against acquittal in two respects. When the High Court enhances the sentence against an acused person it is not convicting him for the first time. The accused already stands convicted. In the case of an appeal against acquittal the High Court is reversing the finding of the trial court and convicting the accused. The second point of differenee is that in the case of enhancement the proceedings are converted into regular appeal so that in an enhancement proceedings the accused gets a statutory right of appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code to show that not only enhancement of sentence is not warranted but even his conviction is not justified by the facts of the case. In enhancement cases there is already one appeal. That being so, no further appeal is necessary. Thirdly, the amendment recognizes conviction or acquittal as the basis for a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. It does not recognize the nature of sentence or the type of punishment as the basis for a right of appeal.