Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, ROMESH VERMA
State of H.P – Appellant
Versus
Bhawani @ Bhagwan Dass – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal in assault case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. contradictions in victim and son accounts. (Para 9 , 10 , 33 , 34) |
| 3. flawed investigation, recovery, and medical history. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 31 , 32) |
| 4. hostile witnesses fail to corroborate. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 35) |
| 5. limited interference in acquittal appeals. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. material inconsistencies shatter prosecution case. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 7. acquittal upheld, appeal dismissed. (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The present appeal arises out of the judgment as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (III), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. on 01.12.2014, whereby the present respondent has been acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 5/2014, under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) in FIR No. 108/08 dated 10th July, 2008 registered at Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.07.2008 one Alto Car bearing registration No. HP 53- 5288 came in the premises of
Appellate interference in acquittal justified only if perverse or sole guilt view possible; contradictions in key testimonies, FIR delay, recovery doubts sustain acquittal.
The court emphasized the principle that an order of acquittal should only be reversed if it is clearly unreasonable and there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so.
In appeals against acquittal, courts must find overwhelming evidence of guilt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Appeal against acquittal under NDPS Act dismissed; trial court's view upheld as not perverse due to witness contradictions, procedural lapses like unrecorded prior information, no independent witness....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
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.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and credibility of eyewitnesses is essential for conviction.
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....
Acquittal of the accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
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
