Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.76 seconds)Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951
"It is, in our opinion, well settled that it is not enough for
the High Court to take a different view of the evidence;
there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for
holding that the trial court was wrong; Ajmer Singh v.
8
AIR 1955 SC 807
9
AIR 1956 SC 217
15
CPK, J & BVLNC, J
Crl.A.No.896 of 2014
State of Punjab10, (at pp.77-78); and if the trial Court
takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case,
interference under S. 417 is not justifiable unless there
are really strong reasons for reversing that view. Surajpal
Singh v. State11 at 54."
Section 417 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sheo Swarup vs King-Emperor on 26 July, 1934
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ghurey Lal vs State Of
U.P3, while referring to the case of Sheo Swarup v. King
Empero4, discussed the ambit and scope of the powers of the
appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal and
observed as under: (at p. 230):
Tulsiram Kanu vs The State on 29 January, 1951
In Tulsiram Kanu v. The State6, this Court explicated
that the appellate court would be justified in reversing
the acquittal only when very substantial question and
compelling reasons are present. In this case, the Court
used a different phrase to describe the approach of an
appellate court against an order of acquittal. There, the
Sessions Court expressed that there was clearly
reasonable doubt in respect of the guilt of the accused on
the evidence put before it. Kania, C.J., observed that it
required good and sufficiently cogent reasons to overcome
such reasonable doubt before the appellate court came to
a different conclusion.
Madan Mohan Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 7 May, 1954
In the same year, this Court had an occasion to deal
with Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh7,
wherein it said that the High Court had not kept the rules
and principles of administration of criminal justice
clearly before it and that therefore the judgment was
vitiated by non-advertence to and mis-appreciation of
various material facts transpiring in evidence. The High
6
AIR 1954 SC 1
7
AIR 1954 SC 637
14
CPK, J & BVLNC, J
Crl.A.No.896 of 2014
Court failed to give due weight and consideration to the
findings upon which the trial court based its decision.
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.
It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide
powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against
an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against
an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the
presumption of innocence with which the accused person
starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate
stage and that the appellate court should attach due
weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the
order of acquittal."
Aher Raja Khima vs The State Of Saurashtra on 22 December, 1955
51. The question was again raised prominently in Aher
Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra9. Bose, J. expressing
the majority view observed (at p.220):
Raju Devade vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 June, 2016
9. Sri P.V.S.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the
appellant, mainly submits that though there are some
variations in the three dying declarations recorded, with regard
to the participation of the accused in the commission of offence,
but the Court can take into consideration the dying declaration
recorded by Magistrate for convicting the accused. He would
submit that having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble
8
CPK, J & BVLNC, J
Crl.A.No.896 of 2014
Supreme Court in Raju Devade vs. State of Maharashtra1,
the dying declaration which inspires confidence and more
particularly, the one recorded by a Magistrate can be looked
into for the purpose of convicting the accused. Insofar as the
evidence of the doctor is concerned, learned counsel for the
appellant would contend that it is only opinion evidence and the
same shall not weigh and come in the way of the Court to
believe the dying declaration. He took us through the dying
declarations to show that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 supports
his plea.