Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P – Appellant
Versus
Puran Chand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution alleged assault, confinement over milk dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court convicted based on eyewitness corroboration. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. appellate court acquitted doubting witness presence. (Para 7) |
| 4. state challenges appellate evidence appreciation errors. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. acquittal reasonable; no interference in appeal. (Para 11) |
| 6. interfere with acquittal only if perverse. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. injuries inconsistent with alleged weapon use. (Para 15 , 17) |
| 8. omission of witness in fir doubts presence. (Para 18) |
| 9. crowd non-intervention renders incident improbable. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 10. equal weight to credible defence witnesses. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 11. unexplained accused injuries weaken prosecution case. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 12. appeal dismissed; acquittal view sustainable. (Para 27 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.02.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP) (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jawali, District Kang
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....
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 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....
Appellate court should not interfere with reasonable acquittal view despite alternate possibility, factoring FIR delay, night identification doubts, intoxication-enabled fall injuries, strained relat....
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to reasonable doubts in witness credibility and the lack of substantive evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
High Courts interfere with acquittal only if trial judgment perverse, misreads material evidence, or no reasonable innocence view possible; double presumption favors upholding acquittal where two vie....
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
