Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
These aspects were highlighted by this Court
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 2622), Ramesh Babulal Doshi
v. State of Gujarat (1996 (4) Supreme 167), Jaswant Singh
v. State of Haryana (2000 (3) Supreme 320), Raj Kishore
Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152),
State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003 (5) Supreme 508 and
State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003 (7) Supreme
State Of Punjab vs Karnail Singh on 14 August, 2003
These aspects were highlighted by this Court
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 2622), Ramesh Babulal Doshi
v. State of Gujarat (1996 (4) Supreme 167), Jaswant Singh
v. State of Haryana (2000 (3) Supreme 320), Raj Kishore
Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152),
State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003 (5) Supreme 508 and
State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003 (7) Supreme
State Of Punjab vs Pohla Singh And Anr on 22 September, 2003
These aspects were highlighted by this Court
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 2622), Ramesh Babulal Doshi
v. State of Gujarat (1996 (4) Supreme 167), Jaswant Singh
v. State of Haryana (2000 (3) Supreme 320), Raj Kishore
Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152),
State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003 (5) Supreme 508 and
State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003 (7) Supreme
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 23 January, 2003
There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing
the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based.
Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with
because the presumption of innocence of the accused is
further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which
runs through the web of administration of justice in
criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which
is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The
paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that
miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice
which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where
admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the
accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining
as to whether any of the accused really committed any
offence or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2002 (2) Supreme 567)]. The principle to
be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal
against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when
there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If
the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and
relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably
eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for
interference.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1