Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.49 seconds)
Haryana State Pollution Control Board vs M/S Vatika Ltd And Ors on 14 March, 2022 cites

Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960

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, 201. (2) (1953) S.C.R 418 (3) (1961) 3 S C. R. 120. (4) (1962) Supp. I.S.C.R 104. prosecution case against the appellants had been proved beyond a reason-able doubt, and that the contrary view taken by the trial Court was, erroneous. In answering this question, we would, no doubt, consider the salient and broad features of the evidence in order to appreciate the grievance made by the appellants against the conclusions of the High Court. But under Article 136 we would ordinarily be reluctant to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the High Court particularly where the said findings are based on appreciation of oral evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 228 - Full Document

Harbans Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 16 October, 1961

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, 201. (2) (1953) S.C.R 418 (3) (1961) 3 S C. R. 120. (4) (1962) Supp. I.S.C.R 104. prosecution case against the appellants had been proved beyond a reason-able doubt, and that the contrary view taken by the trial Court was, erroneous. In answering this question, we would, no doubt, consider the salient and broad features of the evidence in order to appreciate the grievance made by the appellants against the conclusions of the High Court. But under Article 136 we would ordinarily be reluctant to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the High Court particularly where the said findings are based on appreciation of oral evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 207 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Babu vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010

"7.2 Before considering the appeal on merits, the law on the appeal against acquittal and the scope and ambit of Section 378 Cr.P.C. and the interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal is required to be considered. 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:
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 492 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Shambhoo Missir And Another vs State Of Bihar on 24 July, 1990

12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-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)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 200 - P B Sawant - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Veer Singh And Ors on 5 September, 2007

12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-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)
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1464 - A Pasayat - Full Document

S. Rama Krishna vs S. Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. & Ors on 29 April, 2008

12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-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)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 323 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next