Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sheo Swarup vs King-Emperor on 26 July, 1934
The dictum of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King
Emperor ('), and a bead-roll of decisions of this Court have
firmly established the position that although in an appeal
from an order of acquittal the powers of the High Court to
reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions are as
extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction,
yet, as a rule of prudence, it should-to use the words of
Lord Russel of Killowen-'always give proper weight and
consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the Trial
Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses (2) the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a
presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has
been acquitted at the trial; (3) the right of the accused to
the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an
appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at
by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.
Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the
evidence on record, the High Court should, as a matter of
judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of
acquittal recorded by the Court below. In other words, in
the main grounds on which the Court below has based its
order acquitting the accused, are reasonable
99
and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively
dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb
the acquittal.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1