Babu vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010
"14.2. When can the findings of fact recorded by a court be held to be perverse has been dealt with and considered in paragraph 20 which reads as under: [Babu v. State of Kerala2]:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. Thr.Secretary on 19 August, 2009
[(1984) 4 SCC 635], Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons [1992 Supp (2) SCC 312], Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE[1994 Supp (3) SCC 665], Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad[(2001) 1 SCC 501], Aruvelu v. State, [(2009) 10 SCC 206] and Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. [(2009) 10 SCC 636])."
Atley vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 16 September, 1955
"It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well- established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence.
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka4, Supreme Court has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under:
P. Murugesan And Others vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 3 February, 1993
In the said judgment, distinction from that of "possible view" to "erroneous view" or "wrong view" is explained. In clear terms, this Court has held that if the view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", the High Court not to reverse the acquittal to that of the conviction."
Tarsem Kumar & Others vs Chandigarh Administration U.T on 13 February, 2013
41. The Supreme Court in Tarsem Kumar v. Delhi Administration6 held as follows:
Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017
43. Recently, in Mukesh v. Stae (NCT of Delhi)7, Supreme Court observed as follows:
Sardul Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 1993
In the case of Sardul Singh v. State of Punjab8, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "ocular evidence will prevail over medical evidence when credibility of eye witnesses is established beyond doubt."
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
In State of U.P. v Anil Singh9, the Supreme Court observed that:
Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999
In Leela Ram v. State of Haryana10, the Supreme Court held as follows: