Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)State Of U.P vs Ram Sajivan & Ors on 4 December, 2009
In State of UP Vs. Ram Sajivan and others, 2010 (1) SCC
529, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, observed as under:-
Raj Narain Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 18 September, 2009
"In the case of Raj Narain v. State of U.P. & Others
[Criminal Appeal Nos. 891-892 of 2002 decided on
18.09.2009], this Court reiterated the aforesaid view and held
that even if two views are reasonably possible, one indicating
conviction and other acquittal, this Court will not interfere
with the order of acquittal. However, this Court will not
hesitate to interfere with such order if the acquittal is perverse
in the sense that no reasonable person would have come to that
conclusion, or if the acquittal is manifestly illegal or grossly
unjust."
C. Antony vs K.G. Raghavan Nair on 1 November, 2002
It is a settled law as has been held in C. Antony Vs. K.G.
Raghavan Nair, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 750 that even if a second view on
appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the
acquittal of the accused. In the cases of acquittal, there is double
presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly
the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it
is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible.
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1