Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.37 seconds)
R.Eswaran vs State Rep. By on 20 October, 2021 cites

Babu vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010

15. Law is well settled, that, in the appeal against acquittal, the order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with by the appellate Court unless there is omission or perverse in the finding of the trial Court. The appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside the order of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate Court may be the more probable one. It is also settled law that in a case of appeal against acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence was further confirmed by the order of acquittal. The Honourable Supreme Court in Babu vs. State of Kerala reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179, has held as follows:
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 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD) No.554 of 2018 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: 1974 SCC (cri) 837; Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of BiharAIR 1991 SC 315;Shailendra Pratap & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 761;Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699;Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 731; State of U.P. v. Ramveer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 1025; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 200 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Shailendra Pratap And Anr vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 8 January, 2003

“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 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD) No.554 of 2018 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: 1974 SCC (cri) 837; Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of BiharAIR 1991 SC 315;Shailendra Pratap & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 761;Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699;Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 731; State of U.P. v. Ramveer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 1025; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 227 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Narendra Singh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 12 April, 2004

“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 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD) No.554 of 2018 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: 1974 SCC (cri) 837; Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of BiharAIR 1991 SC 315;Shailendra Pratap & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 761;Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699;Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 731; State of U.P. v. Ramveer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 1025; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 641 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Budh Singh And Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 May, 2006

“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 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD) No.554 of 2018 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: 1974 SCC (cri) 837; Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of BiharAIR 1991 SC 315;Shailendra Pratap & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 761;Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699;Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 731; State of U.P. v. Ramveer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 1025; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 79 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Ramveer Singh S/O Swaroop Singh, Labour ... on 30 November, 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 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD) No.554 of 2018 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: 1974 SCC (cri) 837; Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of BiharAIR 1991 SC 315;Shailendra Pratap & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 761;Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699;Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 731; State of U.P. v. Ramveer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 1025; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 30 - R Tiwari - 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 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD) No.554 of 2018 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: 1974 SCC (cri) 837; Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of BiharAIR 1991 SC 315;Shailendra Pratap & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 761;Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699;Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 731; State of U.P. v. Ramveer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 1025; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 323 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next