Back
K. SOMASHEKAR, P. N. DESAI
Somashekara S/o. Mastaiah – Appellant
Versus
Vasanthakumar, S/o. Lorry Chennaiah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.228/2009 dated 07.04.2014, whereby acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 504, 506-B, 302, 114 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The State has preferred this appeal by challenging the acquittal judgment by urging various grounds and seeks for consideration of the grounds and consequently, set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court and to convict the accused for the offences leveled against them.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri. N. Dinesh Rao for the appellant / complainant who is present before the Court physically and also learned counsel Sri. S. Shankarappa for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 7 and so also, Smt. M. Gayathri for respondent No.8. But counsel Sri. S. Shankarappa for the aforesaid respondent accused would take care of the counsel namely Sri. R. Srinivas for respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6 who is on record.
4. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court which is challenged under this appeal consisting of evidence of PWs.1 to 34 and several documents got marked at Exs.P1 to
Point of Law : Person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
The appellate court overturned the acquittal of the accused by establishing that reliable eyewitness and medical evidence confirmed their formation of an unlawful assembly leading to murder.
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence. [Para 236]
The main legal point established in the judgment is that conviction cannot be based solely on unreliable witness testimony, and previous enmity can be a ground for false implication. Additionally, la....
A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires reliable evidence beyond hearsay; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for a guilty verdict.
Point of Law : Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 even minor contradiction and inconsistency in the testimony of an injured eyewitness do not make him an untrustworthy and unreliable witness.
The lack of legal evidence and secondary hypothesis in the prosecution evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
The appellate court can overturn a trial court's acquittal if the findings are perverse, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness testimony and the presumption of innocence.
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
