Back
C.K.THAKKER, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
Chandrappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
What is the scope of appellate power in an appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 378 CrPC? What are the principles governing when an appellate court may interfere with a trial court’s acquittal in crimes under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 302, and 324 read with 149? What standards determine whether two reasonable views on evidence exist such that the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s acquittal?
Key Points: - The appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence in an appeal against acquittal and may reach its own conclusions on facts and law (!) (!) . - In acquittal appeals, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused: presumption of innocence and reinforced by the trial court’s acquittal (!) . - If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s acquittal (!) (!) . - The decision discusses established authorities (Sheo Swarup, Nur Mohammad, Sanwat Singh) about standards for interference and cautions appellate courts to provide reasons for reversal (!) (!) (!) . - The case applies these principles to uphold setting aside an appellate reversal and restore acquittal, concluding the High Court should not disturb a plausible trial court view when two views are possible (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment ultimately allows the appeal, overturning the High Court conviction and restoring Trial Court acquittal (appellate reversal under scrutiny) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Hon. C.K. Thakker, J.—The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated November 24, 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 1008 of 1999 whereby it set aside the order dated July 14, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1991 acquitting the accused (appellants herein) of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short).
2. Brief facts of the case are that Accused No. 2, Somashekhara, Accused No. 8, Thammaiah and PW 8 Krishnaiah were running a Chit Transaction in which successful members were given articles like vessels, watches, sarees, cloth-pieces, etc. The said transaction was conducted once a week in the shop of PW 8 Krishnaiah and also at Kollapuradamma Temple at Hanumanthapura. It is the case of the prosecution that on October 30, 1989, one such transaction was held at about 5.30 p.m. in which one Nagaraj, the successful bidder was given a copper vessel (Kolaga). Nagaraj returned the vessel with his maternal uncle as it was old and demanded a new vessel. But the request was refused by the propr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
