Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.19 seconds)
Rakeshkumar Damodarji Acharya & 2 vs State Of ... on 29 April, 2014 cites

State Of Haryana vs Ram Singh on 15 January, 2002

"5. To say the least, the approach of the High Court is totally fallacious. In an appeal against conviction, the Appellate Court has the duty to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of the evidence, the benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to an accused. It is not correct to suggest that the "Appellate Court cannot legally interfere Page 46 of 48 R/CR.A/2233/2009 CAV JUDGMENT with" the order of conviction where the trial Court has found the evidence as reliable and that it cannot substitute the findings of the Sessions Judge by its own, if it arrives at a different conclusion on reassessment of the evidence. The observation made in Tota Singh's case, which was an appeal against acquittal, have been misunderstood and mechanically applied. Though, the powers of an appellate Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction are equally wide but the considerations which weigh with it while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and in an appeal against conviction are distinct and separate. The presumption of innocence of an accused which gets strengthened on his acquittal is not available on his conviction. An appellate Court may give every reasonable weight to the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court but it must be remembered that an appellate Court is duty bound, in the same way as the trial Court, to test the evidence extrinsically as well as intrinsically and to consider as thoroughly as the trial Court, all the circumstances available on the record so as to arrive at an independent finding regarding guilt or innocence of the convict. An Appellate Court fails in the discharge of one of its essential duties, if it fails to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and arrive at an independent finding based on the appraisal of such evidence."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 348 - Full Document

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984

51. The trial Judge owes a responsibility to weigh the probability of the prosecution evidence, which he has to do for arriving at the decision whether the prosecution allegations have been proved by the standard laid down in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. In so weighing the probability of the prosecution allegations, of necessity, other probabilities also appearing from the evidence brought before the Court have to be considered for comparative assessment which of the Page 45 of 48 R/CR.A/2233/2009 CAV JUDGMENT probabilities should be accepted as a fact proved. If, from the evidence, any probability consistent with the innocence of the accused is equally strong as the probability pointing to his guilt, then on the strength of the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, it could be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its allegations. Even if the probability consistent with innocence is not equally strong with other probability of his guilt, yet the probability of innocence is such as would cast a doubt, then it may be a case of reasonable doubt, the benefit of which must go to the accused. That being so, it is incumbent upon the trial Judge to consider all the probabilities that appear from the evidence before him and he cannot afford to be credulous and omit to consider reasonable probabilities only because in the opinion of the medical expert, the case is one of homicidal death and not suicidal death. The judgment rendered by the trial Court has given us an impression that it neglected to consider a probable defence appearing from the evidence only because the medical evidence suggests so. The trial Court, as a Judge of fact, must consider the evidence given in the case from all view points.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3286 - Full Document
1   2 Next