Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Yashinkhan Ahmedkhan And Ors. vs Hushanbhai Rajabbhai And Ors. on 11 August, 1977
26 (Jamuna Das v. Emperor), 1948 Cr. L. J. 384 (Debi Dayal and Anr. v. Gur Sahai), 1968 Cr. L.J. 1304 (Gordhan Das v. State and Ors.) and (XIX) 1978 G.L.R. 175 (Yashinkhan Ahmedkhan and Ors. v. Hushanbhai Rajabhai and Ors.).
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Section 456 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Orissa And Etc. vs Trinath Dash And Ors. on 5 January, 1982
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant did not seriously press the appeal so far as it relates to the acquittal of respondents Nos. 1. and 2 of the charge under Section 379/34, I. P. C, in view of the statement made by the appellant (P W. 1) in cross-examination to the effect that respondent No. 3 committed theft of brinjals and respondent No. 4 committed theft of two bunches of bananas. He did not specifically implicate respondents Nos. 1 and 2 with the commission of theft. Therefore, the trial Court took the correct view in holding that the charge of theft was not brought home to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. This apart, by a series of decisions law has been well settled that a judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with unless the assessment of evidence and the conclusion drawn by the trial Court are unreasonable, erroneous and perverse. Reversal of a judgment of acquittal will not be justified merely on the ground that the appellate Court's view on the evidence on record is different from that of the trial Court or on the same set of evidence two views are reasonably possible [See 54 (1982) C. L. T. 83-State of Orissa v. Trinath Das and Ors., 1933 C. L. R. (Cr.)
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Smt. Dhara Dei vs Prafulla Swain And Ors. on 29 June, 1984
9-Charupraya Dei v. Durjyodhan Mohanty and Ors., 55 (1983) C. L. T. 553-State of Orissa v. Arjuna Das and 58 (1984) C. L. T. 101: 1984 (I) OLR 621- Smt. Dhara Del v. Prafulla Swain and Ors.). In the present case, as already referred to above, the views expressed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in acquitting respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of the charge under Section 379/34, I. P. C, was not unreasonable, unjustified or perverse in the context of the evidence of the appellant (P. W. 1) himself and so it would be impermissible and improper according to law to interfere with such order of acquittal.