Back
C. R. DASH, PARTHA SARATHI SEN
State Of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Maheswar Jadav – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Partha Sarathi Sen, J. - The present appeal at the instance of the State arises out of a judgement and order of acquittal dated 18.06.1988 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah, in S.T. case no. XXI (July)1987 (arising out of Howrah GRPS Case No. 32 dated 27.02.1983).
2. By the impugned judgement the learned trial court found the accused (respondent herein) not guilty under Section 307 IPC and thus acquitted him under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The State felt aggrieved with the impugned judgement dated 18.06.1988 and thus preferred the instant appeal.
4. It is pertinent to mention herein that in spite of several orders as passed by this Court the whereabouts of the respondent could not be ascertained by the appellant authority and accordingly the presence of the respondent Maheswar Jadav could not be ensured in this appeal and thus this appeal was heard in absence of the respondent.
5. In order to dispose of the instant appeal fairly and effectively the facts leading to the initiation of ST Case No. XXI (July) 1987 against the respondent is to be dealt with in a nut shell.
6. On 27.02.1983, one Bhagaban Pandey, son of Ramdeo Pa
In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted if two views are possible on the evidence. The presumption of innocence of the accused is paramount.
An appellate court must respect the acquittal by the trial court unless the judgment suffers from severe legal flaws or misinterpretations of evidence.
The presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal, and appellate courts must exercise caution in reviewing such judgments.
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 affirmed the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and that conflicting witness testimonies do not establish guilt beyond ....
The appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence, stating that acquittals should not be disturbed unless the trial court's judgment is unreasonable.
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 appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless they are perverse or illegal, reaffirming the high burden of proof required in criminal cases.
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
