Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (6.08 seconds)Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960
13 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 17:41:05 :::
CRM-A-976-MA-2017 -14-
trial." Therefore, the test suggested by the expression "substantial
and compelling reasons" should not be construed as a formula
which has to be rigidly applied in every case. That is the effect of
the recent decisions of this Court, for instance, in Sanwat Singh v.
State of Rajasthan (2) and Harbans Singh v. The State of Punjab
(4); and so, it is not necessary that before reversing a judgment of
acquittal, the High Court must necessarily characterise the
findings recorded therein as perverse. Therefore, the question
which we have to ask ourselves in the present appeals is whether
on the material produced by the prosecution, the High Court was
justified in reaching the conclusion that the (1) (1952) S.C.R. 193,
Harbans Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 16 October, 1961
13 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 17:41:05 :::
CRM-A-976-MA-2017 -14-
trial." Therefore, the test suggested by the expression "substantial
and compelling reasons" should not be construed as a formula
which has to be rigidly applied in every case. That is the effect of
the recent decisions of this Court, for instance, in Sanwat Singh v.
State of Rajasthan (2) and Harbans Singh v. The State of Punjab
(4); and so, it is not necessary that before reversing a judgment of
acquittal, the High Court must necessarily characterise the
findings recorded therein as perverse. Therefore, the question
which we have to ask ourselves in the present appeals is whether
on the material produced by the prosecution, the High Court was
justified in reaching the conclusion that the (1) (1952) S.C.R. 193,
Nagbhushan Arkasali vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 October, 2019
12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of
Nagbhushan vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 5 SCC 212, as under:
Babu vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010
7.2.1 In the case of Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189,
this Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. In
paragraphs 12 to 19, it is observed and held as under:
Shambhoo Missir And Another vs State Of Bihar on 24 July, 1990
matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram
v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo Missir v.
State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap v. State
of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State of M.P
(2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9
SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC
102, S. Rama v. S.Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535, Aruvelu
v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla Somasekhara Reddy v.
State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram Singh v. State of
H.P. (2010) 2 SCC 445)
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Veer Singh And Ors on 5 September, 2007
matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram
v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo Missir v.
State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap v. State
of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State of M.P
(2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9
SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC
102, S. Rama v. S.Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535, Aruvelu
v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla Somasekhara Reddy v.
State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram Singh v. State of
H.P. (2010) 2 SCC 445)
S. Rama Krishna vs S. Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. & Ors on 29 April, 2008
matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram
v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo Missir v.
State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap v. State
of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State of M.P
(2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9
SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC
102, S. Rama v. S.Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535, Aruvelu
v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla Somasekhara Reddy v.
State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram Singh v. State of
H.P. (2010) 2 SCC 445)