Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Munni Devi W/o Sh. Hanuman Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The matter is listed in ‘Defect category’ as the appeal is time barred by 218 days. An application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and matter is taken up for hearing.
3. The appellant has filed the present criminal leave to appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bikaner whereby, the trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2 to 4 from the charges for offence under Sections 323, 341, 427 & 34 IPC.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner stating there in that there is civil dispute pending between her and the respondents No.2 to 4. It was alleged that the respondents No.2 to 4 came to her and took away the documents related property and other important documents. It was further alleged that the respondents No.2 to 4 also beaten her husband Hanuman Ram.
5. The complaint was forwarded to the concerned Police station and FIR No. 217/2018 came to b
The court upheld the presumption of innocence in acquittals, stating that interference requires compelling reasons and substantial evidence.
The court will interfere in a judgment of acquittal only if there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so, and if the trial court has ignored or misread material evidence.
In reviewing appeals against acquittals, the Appellate Court should intervene only when compelling reasons exist, particularly if the Trial Court’s findings appear unreasonable.
A clear justification is essential for condonation of significant delays in filing appeals, which requires specific details beyond vague assertions.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal, and appellate courts can only interfere if the trial court's view is unreasonable or if guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
An acquittal should not be disturbed unless there are compelling reasons or clear errors in the trial court's judgment.
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 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
