Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Nanku Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.8.2009 and order of sentence dated 21.8.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellants (accused before the learned Trial Court)were convicted and sentenced as under:
| Section | Sentence |
| 307 read with Section 149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months |
| 147 IPC | Simple imprisonment for six months |
| 323 IPC | Simple imprisonment for six months |
| It was also ordered that all the aforesaid substantive sentences shall run concurrently. | |
(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner asthey were arrayed before the learned Trial Court forconvenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, and 307 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant/victim, Ranveer Dutt (PW3), and his son Chandan Sharma (PW4) had gone to attend the marriage of Charan Dass at Dilm
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence.
Appellate interference with acquittal justified only if perverse, ignores material evidence, or no reasonable innocence view possible; here upheld due to contradictions, delay, defence credibility.
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of caste-based abuse due to unreliable witness testimonies and significant delays in reporting the incident.
In criminal appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence strengthens upon acquittal, and appellate intervention is limited unless the trial court's judgment demonstrates illegality or irra....
Appellate interference in acquittal appeals limited to perverse judgments ignoring evidence where only guilt view possible; unexplained FIR delay, unreliable interested witnesses justify upholding tr....
Appellate court should not interfere with reasonable acquittal view despite alternate possibility, factoring FIR delay, night identification doubts, intoxication-enabled fall injuries, strained relat....
In appeal against acquittal, interference only if perverse, misreads evidence or guilt sole possible view; upheld here due to medical inconsistencies, unexplained accused injuries, improbable facts, ....
Appellate courts interfere with acquittal only if perverse or no reasonable view possible; non-explanation of accused injuries, witness contradictions, inconsistent prosecution version justify uphold....
In appeal against acquittal lacking reasons, re-appreciation permissible; no interference if Trial Court view sustainable despite evidentiary infirmities like hostile witnesses, FIR delay and absent ....
Appellate interference in acquittal only if perverse or no reasonable acquittal view possible; upheld trial court's reasonable findings on witness contradictions, medical non-corroboration, and lack ....
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
