Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal in molestation and assault case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial charges, evidence, and acquittal on discrepancies. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. parties contend on trial court's evidence appreciation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. fir omissions and injuries possibly from fall. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. testimonies inconsistent on dates, place, causation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. reasonable trial view precludes appellate interference. (Para 24) |
| 8. appeal dismissed; records returned to trial court. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.05.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were 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 charge-sheet against the accused before learned Trial Court for
Appellate court interferes with acquittal only if trial finding perverse, misreads evidence, or solely guilt-consistent view possible; reasonable doubt from discrepancies justifies upholding acquitta....
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....
Appellate court should not interfere with reasonable acquittal view despite alternate possibility, factoring FIR delay, night identification doubts, intoxication-enabled fall injuries, strained relat....
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 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....
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 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.
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.
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
