Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.20 seconds)Section 387 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 385 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Joginder Singh And Anr. vs State Of Haryana on 9 October, 2002
In
support of this submissions, he has referred to
and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Joginder Singh & Anr. Vs. State
of Haryana, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 407 and
submitted that as observed, the parameters for
reversal of the acquittal are well settled. He
emphasized the observations,
"The jurisdiction of the appellate court in
dealing with an appeal, against an order of
acquittal is circumscribed by the
limitation that no interference is to be
Page 13 of 25
R/CR.A/648/2000 JUDGMENT
made with the order of acquittal unless the
apprach made by the lower court to the
consideration of the evidence in the case
is vitiated by some manifest illegality or
the conclusion recorded by the court below
is such which could not have been possibly
arrived at by any court acting reasonably
and judiciously and is, therefore, liable
to he characterised as perverse. Where two
views are possible on an appraisal of the
evidence adduced in the case and the court
below has taken a view which is a plausible
one, the appellate court cannot legally
interfere with an order of acquittal even
if it is of the opinion that the view taken
by the court below on its consideration of
the evidence is erroneous."
Muthu Kutty And Anr vs State By Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu on 19 November, 2004
19. Therefore keeping in mind the provision of Section
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
though there may not be any embargo on the power
and there could be a justification in a given case
to upset or reversal of acquittal, normally the
high court would be slow in reversing such
decision of the trial court. It has been
consistently held and observed that merely because
other view is possible or when it is possible that
other view could have been taken, does not
necessarily justify the interference or
substitution. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Page 24 of 25
R/CR.A/648/2000 JUDGMENT
Court in a judgment in case of Murugesan S/o Muthu
(supra) again reiterating the same principles has
made observation,
"It must be emphasized that the inhibition
to interfere must be perceived only in a
situation where the view taken by the trial
court is not a possible view. The use of
the expression "possible view" is conscious
and not without good reasons. The said
expression is in contradistinction to
expressions such as "erroneous view" or
"wrong view" which, at first blush, may
seem to convey a similar meaning though a
fine and subtle difference would be clearly
discernible."
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
18. The aforesaid aspect has been very aptly
considered in earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 and the
Page 22 of 25
R/CR.A/648/2000 JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Apex Court has considered and laid down
the principles regarding the powers of the
appellate court while dealing with the appeal
against the order of acquittal, which reads as
under :
"(1) An appellate Court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded;