Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, SUSHIL KUKREJA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Kaul Ram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against ndps acquittal for charas possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contentions on trial court's evidence appreciation. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. limited appellate interference with reasonable acquittals. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. police witnesses testify to search and recovery. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. reliable police testimony lacks automatic distrust. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. contradictions and absent independents fatal to prosecution. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. suspicion cannot replace proof beyond doubt. (Para 28) |
| 8. uphold acquittal; dismiss state appeal. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.
1. Appellant-State has preferred the instant appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.03.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division Division at Rampur Bushahr, HP, in NDPS Case No.0100010/2009, whereby accused Kaul Ram (respondent herein) was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to present appeal as
Appellate courts should not interfere with acquittal in NDPS cases if trial court's view reasonable, absent perversity; material contradictions in police testimonies and non-association of independen....
Appellate courts uphold trial court acquittals in NDPS cases unless perverse; material contradictions in police testimonies, sealing discrepancies, and non-association of available independent witnes....
Appellate courts should not interfere with acquittal if trial court's view possible despite contradictions in police evidence and hostile independent witness, as suspicion cannot replace proof beyond....
The acquittal of an accused cannot be overturned unless compelling evidence beyond reasonable doubt is provided, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the credibility of witness testimonies.
In NDPS acquittal appeals, courts interfere only if perverse; discrepancies in police evidence, non-association of available independent witnesses, seal issues, and custody gaps justify upholding acq....
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless compelling reasons exist to overturn an acquittal.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless compelling reasons exist to overturn them, especially in cases of acquittal.
Appeal against NDPS acquittal dismissed upholding trial court due to contradictions in official testimonies, document/FIR anomalies, weight discrepancies creating reasonable doubt; appellate interfer....
Appeal against acquittal – No interference is required with appeal against acquittal merely because some other view is possible.
The presumption of innocence strengthens after acquittal, and appellate courts should not overturn such findings unless compelling evidence demonstrates guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
