Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.26 seconds)
Ponnaiah vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 October, 2021 cites

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 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. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206;Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 445).
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 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. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206;Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 445).
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 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. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206;Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 445).
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 323 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Arulvelu & Anr vs State Rep By Public Prosecutor & Anr on 7 October, 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: 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. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206;Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 445).
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 440 - D Bhandari - Full Document

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: 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. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206;Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 445).
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 235 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ram Singh @ Chhaju vs State Of H.P on 28 January, 2010

“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: 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. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206;Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 445).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 128 - H L Dattu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next