Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Nepal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2009
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nepal Singh v.
State of Haryana; 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 418; held that if two
Sunder Sham
2014.01.31 14:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRA No. D-229-DBA of 2001 - 27-
reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial Court. It has been further held that in case of
acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
should be presumed to be innocent, unless he is proved to be guilty
by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured
an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not
weakened, but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Rakesh Kumar on 29 August, 2008
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v.
Rakesh Kumar; 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 797; held that an order of
acquittal can be interfered with only if there is an absolute assurance
of the guilt of the accused upon the evidence on record and the High
Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal,
unless the same is found to be perverse and the order of acquittal
can be set aside if the view taken by the trial Court is perverse. If on
over-all appreciation of evidence available on record, two views are
possible and when on appreciation of evidence, a particular view has
been preferred by the learned Sessions Judge and when the findings
cannot be said to be perverse merely because another view is
possible, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the
acquittal order recorded by the learned trial Judge.
1