Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Yogeshwar @ Raju – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and trial acquittal in assault case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties dispute trial court's evidence appreciation (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. eyewitnesses resile failing prosecution case (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. investigation and medical evidence contradictions (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. inconsistent evidence upholds acquittal (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant criminal appeal, lays challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 16.9.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-7, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in police Challan No. 29-2 of 2014, whereby learned trail Court acquitted the accused for having committed offenses punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC.
2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that on 20.6.2014, complainant-Dalpat Ram (PW1) was sitting in a tent set up for the marriage of son of his staff member, along with Devi Singh, Chet Ram, Hukmi Ram and Jeet Ram and they all were talking to each other, at about 10:00pm, accused asked the complainant not to give lectures. Complainant said that he is talking to others not you. Accused suddenly got up and gave fist blows with his right fist o
Acquittal upheld in appeal where prosecution evidence lacks consistency, eye-witnesses resile, medical opinions contradict on injury nature, and investigation shows material lapses.
In appeals against acquittal, material contradictions in prosecution witnesses, doubtful presence, and failure to examine natural witnesses entitle accused to benefit of doubt where two views possibl....
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
In appeal against acquittal, material contradictions in interested witnesses' inconsistent testimonies, absence of independent corroboration and two possible views from evidence justify upholding acq....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in witness testimony can invalidate a case leading to acquittal.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, puts no limitations, restrictions, or conditions for exercising power by the appellate Court.
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....
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
