Back
SANDEEP MEHTA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Devinder Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case and victim's account. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. standards for appellate review in acquittal cases. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. dismissal of the special leave petition. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
1. None present for the State even in second call.
2. Delay condoned.
3. The instant special leave petition is directed against the judgment dated 25th September, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh rejecting the Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2014 preferred by the State for assailing the judgment dated 29th November, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, acquitting the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.
4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence placed on record.
5. On going through the detailed judgment passed by the High Court, we find that the victim was a young girl about 17 years and 4 months of age at the time of the incident and went missing on 11th June, 2012. The complaint regarding the girl not being traceable was lodged by her elder sister (PW-2) at the Boileauganj Police Stat
Appellate courts should exercise caution in overturning acquittals, only doing so when the evidence unequivocally establishes guilt, maintaining the benefit of the doubt for the accused.
Interference in acquittal appeals is justified only if the trial court's findings are perverse, maintaining that evidentiary support is crucial for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
An appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless clear evidence shows the trial court’s conclusions were perverse or unsupported by credible evidence.
In appeals against acquittal, modifications are permitted only in cases of manifest illegality and substantial reasons, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in the victim's testimony can lead to acquittal in sexual offence cases.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, including establishing the victim's age and non-consent; failure to do so justifies acquittal.
Point of law: In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power....
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
