IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ramneesh Kumar @ Lavallu – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.01.2010 passed by learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act) and Sections 353 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced as under:-

All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
(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 informant, Dr Parkash Chand (PW-1), was posted as a Medical Officer/In-charge in Civil Hospital Chintpurni. He was examining the patients on 03.06.2005 in his room. Accused Ramneesh Kumar @ Lavllu came to the informant’s duty room at about 11:30 p.m. and started abusing him. The accused caught hold of the informant’s neck and abused him in the name of his caste. He threatened to kill
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of caste-based abuse due to unreliable witness testimonies and significant delays in reporting the incident.
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 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 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....
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....
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 prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence.
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....
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.