Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sewa Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 08.07.2009/10.11.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan (H.P.) (learned Appellate Court) vide which the appeal filed by the respondent- State against the judgment dated 23.01.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh, District Solan (learned Trial Court) was allowed, and the petitioner No.1 (accused No.1 before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 201, 323 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and petitioners No. 2 to 4 (accused No. 2 to 4 before learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 201, 323 & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and the order dated 10.11.2009, vide which they were ordered to be released on probation for one year. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before
The appellate court must demonstrate clear error or perversity in a trial court's acquittal to overturn it, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal due to serious flaws in the Test Identification Parade, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for clear evidence of guilt.
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds compelling reasons, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of reliable identification evidence.
Point of law : where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, i....
VERY In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., 1973 against an order of acquittal at the instance of informant, the court exercises only a limited jurisdiction and it should n....
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
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
