Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Prakash Ahuja – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This appeal is at the instance of the original first informant brother of the deceased, seeking to challenge the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.207 of 2013, dated 22nd of August 2013, by which the High Court in an appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal, declined to grant leave under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as, “Cr.P.C.”).
2. We are conscious of the fact that the acquittal appeal was at the instance of the State. As leave came to be declined, the State could have come before us by way of an appeal. However, the State has though fit not to question the order passed by the High Court, declining to grant leave and in such circumstances, it is the brother of the deceased (original first informant) who has thought fit to question the order passed by the High Court.
3. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent no.1 herein, was put to trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No.132 of 2011 on the charge of having committed murder of his wife i.e. the deceased. It is the case of the pros
The High Court must assess prima facie cases for granting leave to appeal against acquittals, ensuring adequate reasoning is provided for any refusal.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless findings are perverse; acquittal strengthens presumption of innocence.
An appellate court cannot interfere with an acquittal without compelling reasons, maintaining the presumption of innocence and respecting the trial court's assessment of evidence.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that two reasonable views should not disturb the trial ....
The court emphasizes the stringent burden on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases of acquittal, reinforcing the principle of presumption of innocence.
Point of law : It is true that the High Court would not reverse an order of acquittal merely on formation of an opinion different than that of the trial Court. It is also trite in law that the High C....
An acquittal by the trial court reinforces the presumption of innocence, and an appeal against such acquittal requires substantial justification, which was lacking in this case.
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
