Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
Madegowda S/o Doddathammegowda – Appellant
Versus
K.C. Raju S/o Chengappa K.M. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This petition by respondent No.1 in Crl.A.No.28/2022 is directed against the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.28/2022 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.1-appellant was allowed by the Sessions Court, which set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 passed by C.C.No.840/2015 and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.
3. For the proposed order, notice to remaining respondents is dispensed with.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1 – complainant filed the instant complaint, which was registered as C.C.No.840/2015 against the petitioner/accused and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 114 , 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 506 read with 149 of IPC. The said proceedings have been contested by the petitioner/accused No.1 and the Trial Court proceeded to pass the order dated 02.03.2020 acquitting the petitioner and all other accused persons. Aggrieved b
The appellate court held that an acquittal must be based on a proper assessment of evidence, and errors in evaluation necessitate remanding the case for fresh consideration.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of compelling evidence to overturn such judgments.
The appellate court observed that a trial acquittal must not be overturned without compelling evidence, maintaining a strong presumption of innocence for the accused.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the trial court's acquittal upheld due to insufficient evidence against the accused under murder charges while their conviction for grie....
The court held that acquittal requires compelling reasons for interference, emphasizing that mere serious injury does not suffice to establish intent under Section 307 of IPC.
An acquittal should not be disturbed without substantial evidence against the acquitted; the presumption of innocence is a crucial standard in criminal appeals.
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal on murder charges citing insufficient evidence, while affirming the conviction for grievous and simple hurt based on reliable testimonies.
An appellate court must respect acquittals and only intervene if the trial court's judgment is legally erroneous or misinterprets evidence, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
An appeal against acquittal should respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere if the acquittal is based on reasonable conclusions drawn from evidence.
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
