Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Babbu alias Ravinder Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial court acquitted due to contradictions, delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. state seeks reversal; defence opposes interference. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. interfere with acquittal only if perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. prosecution testimonies contain material contradictions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. unexplained fir delay suggests embellishment. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. defence witnesses get equal credibility weight. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. medical evidence allows self-infliction possibility. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 8. uphold reasonable trial court acquittal view. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (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 po
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.
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 appeal against acquittal, interference only if perverse, misreads evidence or guilt sole possible view; upheld here due to medical inconsistencies, unexplained accused injuries, improbable facts, ....
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....
In criminal appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence strengthens upon acquittal, and appellate intervention is limited unless the trial court's judgment demonstrates illegality or irra....
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 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 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 courts interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse or ignoring material evidence; trial court's reasonable view, considering double presumption of innocence, not disturbed despite co....
An appellate court can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's decision is perverse or based on a misapprehension of evidence, respecting the presumption of innocence.
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
