Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, JJ
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Pratap Singh Alias Chotu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recovery of contraband (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. prosecution's contention (Para 7) |
| 3. defense's contention (Para 8) |
| 4. review of evidence (Para 9) |
| 5. presumption of innocence (Para 10) |
| 6. scope of appellate court (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. dismissal of appeal (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 11-T/7 of 2013/12, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted of the offence punishable underSection 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the ‘NDPS Act’).
3. On the completion of the investigation and receipt of the SFSL report, the charge-sheet was prepared and presented before the Trial Court.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.PC was recorded, wherein he denied all set of incriminating evidence
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless compelling reasons exist to overturn an acquittal.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless compelling reasons exist to overturn them, especially in cases of acquittal.
The acquittal of an accused cannot be overturned unless compelling evidence beyond reasonable doubt is provided, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the credibility of witness testimonies.
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's view is unreasonable; failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act renders evidence inadmissible....
The appellate court affirmed that a trial court's acquittal may not be disturbed unless it is found to suffer from patent perversity or misreading of evidence.
Appeal against acquittal – No interference is required with appeal against acquittal merely because some other view is possible.
Non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act is fatal to the prosecution case, and the powers of the appellate court in appeals against acquittal should be exercised with caution.
Stringent punishment has been provided for offences punishable under NDPS Act.
The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution's case if police testimonies are credible, and Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable when recovery is from a bag.
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
