Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.59 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
M. G. Agarwal vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 April, 1962
32. Even otherwise, it is settled law that the Appellate Court may only
interfere in an appeal against acquittal when there are substantial and
Crl. L.P.474/2017 Page 19 of 20
compelling reasons to do so [See Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor,
AIR 1934 PC 227 (2); M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1963 SC 200 (paragraph 16 and 17); Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 108: (1987) 2 SCC 529 (paragraph 6); State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 (paragraph 7);
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 (paragraph
Tota Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 1 April, 1987
32. Even otherwise, it is settled law that the Appellate Court may only
interfere in an appeal against acquittal when there are substantial and
Crl. L.P.474/2017 Page 19 of 20
compelling reasons to do so [See Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor,
AIR 1934 PC 227 (2); M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1963 SC 200 (paragraph 16 and 17); Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 108: (1987) 2 SCC 529 (paragraph 6); State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 (paragraph 7);
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 (paragraph
State Of Rajasthan vs Raja Ram on 13 August, 2003
32. Even otherwise, it is settled law that the Appellate Court may only
interfere in an appeal against acquittal when there are substantial and
Crl. L.P.474/2017 Page 19 of 20
compelling reasons to do so [See Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor,
AIR 1934 PC 227 (2); M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1963 SC 200 (paragraph 16 and 17); Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 108: (1987) 2 SCC 529 (paragraph 6); State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 (paragraph 7);
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 (paragraph
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
32. Even otherwise, it is settled law that the Appellate Court may only
interfere in an appeal against acquittal when there are substantial and
Crl. L.P.474/2017 Page 19 of 20
compelling reasons to do so [See Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor,
AIR 1934 PC 227 (2); M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1963 SC 200 (paragraph 16 and 17); Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 108: (1987) 2 SCC 529 (paragraph 6); State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 (paragraph 7);
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 (paragraph
Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 August, 2012
23. The Apex Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported at
(2012) 8 SCC 21 reversed the conviction of the Trial Court and its
Crl. L.P.474/2017 Page 13 of 20
confirmation by the High Court finding contradictions in the testimony
of the prosecutrix and that the same was inconsistent with the
remaining evidence of the prosecution. While doing so, the Supreme
Court examined as to when the prosecutrix can be called to be a
"sterling witness" as under:
Muralidhar @ Gidda & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2014
42); Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 (paragraph 73);
and Muralidhar @ Gidda v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 730
(paragraph 12)].