Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Sarla Devi – Appellant
Versus
Mahinder Pratap – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against defamation acquittal under crpc 378. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations of defamation and criminal threats. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. trial court perversely misappreciated prosecution evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. interfere in acquittal only if perverse. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. witnesses depose to defamatory illicit relations accusation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. perverse finding defies evidence or logic. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. unexplained delay undermines prosecution; no perversity. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 8. appeal dismissed; acquittal judgment upheld. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Appellant Sarla Devi has preferred the present appeal, under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.01.2009, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2 Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), in Criminal Case No.4-II/2006, titled as Sarla Devi versus Mahinder Pratap & Others, arising out of a c
Appellate courts interfere with acquittal only if perverse or ignoring material evidence; here, unexplained delay, witness contradictions rendered trial court's acquittal sustainable.
In appeals against acquittal, interference only if trial findings perverse, ignoring material evidence, or guilt sole possible view; double innocence presumption applies.
Point of Law : It is cardinal principle of criminal justice system that when there is satisfactory explanation for non-examination of independent witnesses, conviction can be based solely on the test....
The judgment emphasizes the need for compelling circumstances and the perversity of the lower court's decision to interfere with an order of acquittal, citing specific cases to support the legal prin....
Point of law : Where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, i....
It is settled law that if main grounds on which lower Court has based its order acquitting accused are reasonable and plausible, and same cannot be entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished....
Court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to riders that presumption of....
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unsustainable, respecting the presumption of innocence.
The judgment emphasized the presumption of innocence, the principles for interference with a judgment of acquittal, and the need for trustworthy evidence to prove the charges 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
