Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.BASAVARAJA
State Of Karnataka, By PSI, Sullia Police Station, Sullia, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – Appellant
Versus
Jagannatha Nayak, S/o. N. Achutha Nayak – Respondent
ORDER :
(G. BASAVARAJA, J.)
State has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment of acquittal dated 20th January 2017 passed in CC No.658 of 2008 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sullia, Dakshina Kannada (for short referred to as the ‘trial Court’) which is confirmed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru sitting at Puttur in Criminal Appeal No.5031 of 2017 dated in 14th December, 2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that Police Sub-Inspector of Subrahmanya Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 4 98A, 323, 342 read with Section 3 4 INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is alleged by the prosecution that PW1-Smt. Savitha Nayak is the wife of accused No.1 Jagadeih Nayak. He marked PW1 in the year 1999 as per Hindu customs and traditions and have begotten a girl child which is aged 7 years. Accused No.2 & 3 are brother and sister-in-law of accused No.1. It is alleged that, in furtherance of common intention
The acquittal of the accused was upheld as the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the allegations of cruelty and dowry demands.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction, reinforcing the presumption of innocence for the accused.
The victim's right to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal.
In appeals against acquittal, courts must respect the presumption of innocence and should only interfere if the trial's conclusions are shown to be perverse or based on erroneous appreciation of evid....
Court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to riders that presumption of....
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited; it cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction without manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice.
An appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or based on manifest illegality.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of proving abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is reinforced by the trial court's acquittal, and appellate courts should only interfere with an order of acquittal in exceptional cases with comp....
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
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
