Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.35 seconds)Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
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 Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535,
Arulvelu 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)
Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors vs State Of A.P Rep.By Public Prosecutor on 6 May, 2009
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 Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535,
Arulvelu 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)
Sheo Swarup vs King-Emperor on 26 July, 1934
In Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC
227, the Privy Council observed as under: (IA p. 404)
"... the High Court should and will always give proper
weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the
Page 8 of 20
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 04:33:09 IST 2022
R/CR.A/330/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/12/2022
views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the
witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by
the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the
right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4)
the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a
finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the
advantage of seeing the witnesses."
State Of Goa vs Sanjay Thakran And Anr on 2 March, 2007
14. The aforesaid principle of law has consistently been
followed by this Court. (See Tulsiram Kanu v. State AIR
1954 SC 1, Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC
216, M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963
SC 200, Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC
450, Sambasivan v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412,
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P(2002) 4 SCC 85 and
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755)
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4
SCC 415, this Court reiterated the legal position as
under: (SCC p. 432, para 42)
"(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal is founded.
Ghurey Lal vs State Of U.P on 30 July, 2008
In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC 450,
this Court reiterated the said view, observing that the
appellate court in dealing with the cases in which the
trial courts have acquitted the accused, should bear in
mind that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the
presumption that he is innocent. The appellate court
must give due weight and consideration to the decision
of the trial court as the trial court had the distinct
advantage of watching the demeanour of the
witnesses, and was in a better position to evaluate the
credibility of the witnesses.
State Of Rajasthan vs Naresh @ Ram Naresh on 26 August, 2009
In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC
368, the Court again examined the earlier judgments of
this Court and laid down that: (SCC p. 374, para 20)
"20. ... an order of acquittal should not be lightly
interfered with even if the court believes that there is
some evidence pointing out the finger towards the
accused."
State Of U.P vs Banne @ Baijnath & Ors on 10 February, 2009
In State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271, this
Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which
the Court would be justified in interfering with a
judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The
circumstances include: (SCC p. 286, para 28) "(i) The
High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous
view of law by ignoring the settled legal position;