Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.20 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Kans Raj vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 26 April, 2000
To give relief to the above named respondents, reliance was
placed upon ratio of the judgment of this Court Kaul Singh and others v.
State of Punjab 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 113 and judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others 2000(2) RCR
(Criminal) 695 and Salamat Ali and another v. State of Bihar AIR 1995
Supreme Court 1863.
Allarakha K. Mansuri vs State Of Gujarat on 14 February, 2002
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri
v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case,
two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be
adopted by the Court.
State Of Punjab vs Hansa Singh on 30 October, 2000
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa
Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, has opined as under:-
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 September, 1990
"We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be
examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1)
SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against
acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal
were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and
merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a
different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."
State Of Goa vs Sanjay Thakran And Anr on 2 March, 2007
Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755
and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was held that
where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused
has to be adopted by the Court.
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755
and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was held that
where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused
has to be adopted by the Court.
Mrinal Das & Ors vs State Of Tripura on 5 September, 2011
In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC
479, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid
down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of
acquittal, by observing as under: