Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
STATE OF ORISSA (GA DEPTT. ) – Appellant
Versus
NARSINGH@SAHAB – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. SAHOO, J.
The petition was filed U/s. 378(5) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.31 of 1989 arising out of V.G.R. No.41 of 1982 corresponding to Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.41 of 1982; acquitting the opposite parties who stood trial for committing the offences U/s.120-B/465/468/471/419 of IPC and under Section 37 of Orissa Forest Act read with Clause 21 of Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 and U/s.5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of P.C. Act. 1988.
2. Learned Standing Counsel strenuously urged to grant leave stating that the learned trial court did not consider the material as well did not appreciate the material in their proper perspective and the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to bring home a finding of guilt against the opposite parties.
3. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, this Court has gone through the judgment impugned as has been annexed through the present petition and on perusal of the judgment, it is indicated that the learned trial court has taken note of the e
An appellate court cannot interfere with an acquittal without compelling reasons, maintaining the presumption of innocence and respecting the trial court's assessment of evidence.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless findings are perverse; acquittal strengthens presumption of innocence.
In appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, requiring clear justification for interference unless the lower court's judgment is perverse or inconsistent with evidence.
An appellate court should refrain from disturbing an acquittal unless sufficiently compelling reasons justify it, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and proper evaluation of trial court decisio....
An appellate court may only overturn a trial court's acquittal if findings are perverse, ignoring relevant evidence or reliant on unsustainable conclusions, with the presumption of innocence strongly....
Where trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of evidence which is but barely possible, it is obvious duty of Hi....
The appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal unless the lower court's approach is vitiated by manifest illegality and the decision is characterized as perverse. The judgment and or....
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....
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is reinforced by the trial court's acquittal, and appellate courts should only interfere with an order of acquittal in exceptional cases with comp....
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
