Back
SIDDHARTH, SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA
Sooraj Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri R.B. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Anshul Tiwari and Sri Kuldeep Jauhari, learned counsel for opposite parties; Sri Prem Shanker Prasad, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.06.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sahjahanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 1158 of 2008 (State Vs. Lakhpat and Others) under sections-147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, Case Crime No. 94 of 2008, Police Station-Jaytipur, District-Sahjahanpur, whereby respondents have been acquitted from all the charges by trial court.
3. The prosecution case, as per F.I.R. is that, it was the time of festival of holi , but mother of informant had died, therefore, celebrations were not being made. On 22.03.2008, the family members of the informant were sitting under a neem tree in front of house of Buddh Pal and waiting for Akhat ( offerings in holi fire), when at about 01:30 p.m., respondents, Lakhpat, Ritesh, Pintoo, Gauri, Shyam Pal, Atar Singh, Narveer, Brijmohan, Sarvesh and Ram Mohan armed with lice
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence and emphasized the presumption of innocence, requiring compelling reasons to overturn such decisions.
In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; any doubts benefit the accused, making acquittal appropriate where evidence is inconsistent or insufficient.
principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While the High Court can review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not int....
The appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely on the basis of a possible alternative view unless the trial court's decision demonstrates illegality or perversity. Evidence must meet the high....
The prosecution's failure to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence warranted the acquittal of the accused, as inconsistencies in witness testimonies created reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The acquittal of accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the principle that enmity can lead to false implication.
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
