Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. Thr.Secretary on 19 August, 2009
In the case of Gemini Bala Koteshwara Rao and
Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2010 SC 589] wherein
it has been held that it is open to the High Court to reappraise
the evidence and conclusion drawn by the trial Court, but only
in case when the judgments of the trial Court is stated to be
perverse. The Apex Court explained the word "perverse" to
mean against weight of evidence. Even though two views are
possible as an appellate court this Court should not reverse the
judgment of acquittal mere because the other view was
possible.
K. Prakashan vs P.K. Surenderan on 10 October, 2007
In the case of K.Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surendran [ (2008)
1 SCC 258] and T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
[(2006) 1 SCC 401] wherein it has been held that when the
judgment of trial Court was neither perverse nor suffered from
4
legal infirmity or non-consideration or misappropriation of
evidence on record. As an appellate court this Court cannot not
reverse the judgment of acquittal mere because the other view
was possible. The prosecution cannot be said to have proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt.
Baijnath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2017
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baijnath and
Ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2017) 1 SCC 101] has
held as under :-
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1