Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (0.55 seconds)
State Of Up vs Rajendra S/O Chunni Lal And 03 Others on 6 July, 2022 cites

Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs The State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 1996

''8. We have perused the judgment under appeal to ascertain whether the High Court has conformed to the aforementioned principles. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner laid down by this Court in Doshi case [Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 972] viz. first recording its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable, which alone will justify interference in an order of acquittal though the High Court has rendered a well-considered judgment duly meeting all the contentions raised before it. But then will this non-compliance per se justify setting aside the judgment under appeal? We think, not. In our view, in such a case, the approach of the court which is considering the validity of the judgment of an appellate court which has reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, should be to satisfy itself if the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and whether the judgment of the appellate court is free from those infirmities; if so to hold that the trial court judgment warranted interference. In such a case, there is obviously no reason why the appellate court's judgment should be disturbed. But if on the other hand the court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, it cannot but be held that the interference by the appellate court in the order of acquittal was not justified; then in such a case the judgment of the appellate court has to be set aside as of the two reasonable views, the one in support of the acquittal alone has to stand. Having regard to the above discussion, we shall proceed to examine the judgment of the trial court in this case.' 31.2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 922 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

Mohd. Azad @ Samin vs State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 2008

"29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimaa Raju v. State of Mysore (1970) 2 SCC 105, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 902, Sivakumar v. State of Inspector of Police (2006) 1 SCC 714 (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 and 42), Shiva Karam Pavaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 262 and Mohd. Azad alias Shamin v. State of W.B. (2008) 15 SCC 449]"
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 119 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Babu vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010

14.2. When can the findings of fact recorded by a court be held to be perverse has been dealt with and considered in paragraph 20 of the aforesaid decision, which reads as under : (Babu case [Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179]) "20. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 492 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Jaswant Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 April, 2000

(v) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on the materials placed. (Vide Madan Lal v. State of J&K¹, Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P.2, Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of M.P.3 and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana4.)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 198 - R Pal - Full Document

Thimma Alias Thimma Raju vs State Of Mysore on 2 April, 1970

"29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimaa Raju v. State of Mysore (1970) 2 SCC 105, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 902, Sivakumar v. State of Inspector of Police (2006) 1 SCC 714 (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 and 42), Shiva Karam Pavaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 262 and Mohd. Azad alias Shamin v. State of W.B. (2008) 15 SCC 449]"
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 130 - I D Dua - Full Document

Budh Singh And Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 May, 2006

40. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See Balak Ram v. State of U.P.9, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.10, Budh Singh v. State of U.P.11, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy¹2, Arulvelu v. State 13, Ram Singh v. State of H.P.14 and Babu v. State of Kerala¹5.)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 79 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next