Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal in molestation and assault case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial charging, witnesses, and accused enmity defense. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial acquittal due to delay and contradictions. (Para 6) |
| 4. state argues medical corroboration ignores minor inconsistencies. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. defense cites unexplained delay and strained relations. (Para 10) |
| 6. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or unreasonable. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. unexplained fir delay fatal to prosecution credibility. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. contradictions, enmity, medical doubt, no corroboration weaken case. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. sc/st act requires dsp-level investigation, violated here. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. uphold reasonable acquittal; dismiss appeal. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.7.2013, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondents (accused before the 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 Tri
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 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 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 with acquittal justified only if perverse, ignores material evidence, or no reasonable innocence view possible; here upheld due to contradictions, delay, defence credibility.
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 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 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 reversal of acquittal unsustainable unless trial judgment perverse, ignores evidence, or no reasonable acquittal view possible; unexplained FIR delay, witness contradictions justify caution....
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
