Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Nanu S/o Shri Shanker – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented by the state (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence and credibility (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. legal principle regarding acquittal and standard of proof (Para 30) |
| 5. conclusion of the appeal (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by appellant- State under Section 378 (i) & (iii) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against accused-respondent Nanu S/o Shri Hari Shankar, challenging the judgment dated 16.02.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No. 110/1996 arising out of FIR No.65/96, lodged at police station Lohariya, Banswara whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 450 of the IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case on 06.03.1996, one Shri Hatu (PW-02) submitted a verbal report (Ex.P-2) at Police Station Lohariya stating that on the previous evening, at about 4:00 PM, his wife, Smt. Dev Kanwar, was preparing tea at their home, while he was sitting at the Padsal. The Adiva
Acquittal of the accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and credibility of eyewitnesses is essential for conviction.
The appellate court may reverse an acquittal if it determines the trial court's findings are perverse and unsupported by credible evidence, reaffirming the reliance on direct eyewitness testimony.
principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While the High Court can review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not int....
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to prove guilt, especially in cases of acquittal.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the need for corroboration 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
