Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Onkar Chand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial court acquitted on doubtful evidence and delay (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. state urges reversal; accused defends reasonable acquittal (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or unreasonable (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. unexplained fir delay undermines prosecution credibility (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. inconsistent interested witnesses need corroboration in enmity cases (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. appeal dismissed upholding trial court acquittal (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.2.2015, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the charged offences. (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 offences punishable under Sections
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 interference in acquittal appeals limited to perverse findings or sole guilt view; unexplained FIR delay, testimony contradictions, enmity motive, non-corroborative medicals, and SC/ST inve....
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 appeals against acquittal, interference only if perverse or no reasonable view supports acquittal; unexplained FIR delay, material improvements in victim's testimony, and lack of corroboration jus....
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.
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.
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 reversal of acquittal unsustainable unless trial judgment perverse, ignores evidence, or no reasonable acquittal view possible; unexplained FIR delay, witness contradictions justify caution....
Appellate interference with acquittal only if perverse, misreading evidence, or no reasonable acquittal view possible; unexplained FIR delay, witness contradictions, inconclusive medicals justify uph....
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
