Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.31 seconds)

Mookkiah & Anr vs State Tr.Insp. Of Police, Tamil Nadu on 4 January, 2013

"4. It is not in dispute that the trial-court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court, the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 37 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs The State Of Gujarat on 16 December, 1977

The decision of Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs. State of Gujarat [(1978) 1 SCC 228] is also considered by us. In this case, the trial court has acquitted the accused and on perusal of impugned judgment and order of acquittal, passed by the learned trial judge, we find that the decision is based on totality of the facts and circumstances. There is no ignoring of settled legal position by the learned trial judge. The approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was absolutely legal and cannot be said to have led to miscarriage of justice. We are of the opinion that the order passed by learned trial court does not require any interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 144 - P K Goswami - Full Document
1   2 Next