Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Sanju Gurang – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusation and initial trial court proceedings. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. details of the incident leading to the case. (Para 2) |
| 3. issues with prosecution's evidence and witness reliability. (Para 6 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. arguments from the state and defense in the appeal. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. standards for reviewing acquittals in criminal cases. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. conclusion and order issued by the court. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘ND&PS’ Act). (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 learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act. It was asserted th
An appellate court must exercise caution in overriding a trial court's acquittal; substantial contradictions in witness testimonies and integrity of evidence undermine prosecution's case.
In appeals against acquittal under NDPS Act, interference justified only if trial court's view perverse or based on misreading evidence; material contradictions in recovery witnesses and lack of inde....
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only intervene when the trial court's findings demonstrate clear legal error or perverse reasoning.
The appellate court must respect acquittals unless evidence shows the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in police testimonies, coupled with lack of independent witness support, entitle the accused to acquittal.
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery process, reinforcing the presumption of innocence in acquittal cases.
In NDPS acquittal appeals, courts interfere only if perverse; discrepancies in police evidence, non-association of available independent witnesses, seal issues, and custody gaps justify upholding acq....
Appellate courts uphold trial court acquittals in NDPS cases unless perverse; material contradictions in police testimonies, sealing discrepancies, and non-association of available independent witnes....
Recovery from hand-carried P-Cap exempts Section 50 NDPS; Section 42 inapplicable in public place. Suspicious post-search consent memo and material contradictions in official witnesses on core recove....
Appellate courts should not interfere with acquittal if trial court's view possible despite contradictions in police evidence and hostile independent witness, as suspicion cannot replace proof beyond....
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
