Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Champalal Punjaji Shah on 12 August, 1981
(b) Where the accused had been acquitted on ground of delay
in conducting trial, which delay was attributable not to the
tardiness or indifference of the prosecuting agencies, but to the
conduct of the accused himself; or where accused had been
acquitted on ground of delay in conducting trial relating to an
offence which is not of a trivial nature. [State of Maharashtra
v. Champalal Punjaji Shah (1981) 3 SCC 610]."
State Of Rajasthan vs Sukhpal Singh & Others on 16 December, 1982
(c)Where testimony of witnesses had been disbelieved by the
High Court, on an unrealistic conjecture of personal motive on
the part of witnesses to implicate the accused, when in fact,
rt
the witnesses had no axe to grind in the said matter. [State of
Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh (1983) 1 SCC 393]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sahai And Ors. on 14 April, 1981
31.1.Ordinarily, this Court is cautious in interfering with an order of
acquittal, especially when the order of acquittal has been confirmed
up to the High Court. It is only in rarest of rare cases, where the High
Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally
erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case, ignoring
of
some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the accused, that the same
may be reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution. [State of U.P. v. Sahai (1982) 1 SCC 352]
Such fetters on the right to entertain an appeal are prompted by the
rtreluctance to expose a person, who has been acquitted by a
competent court of a criminal charge, to the anxiety and tension of a
further examination of the case, even though it is held by a superior
court.
State Of Haryana vs Lakhbir Singh And Another on 11 September, 1990
[State of
Haryana vs. Lakhbir]
31.2.However, this Court has on certain occasions, set aside the
order of acquittal passed by a High Court. The circumstances under
which this Court may entertain an appeal against an order of
acquittal and pass an order of conviction, may be summarized as
follows:
State Of U. P. vs Shanker on 24 October, 1980
393] For example, where direct, unanimous accounts of the
eyewitnesses, were discounted without cogent reasoning.
[State of U.P. vs. Shanker 1980 Supp SCC 489]
State Of U.P. vs Hakim Singh And Ors. on 12 October, 1979
(b) Where the intrinsic merits of the testimony of relatives,
living in the same house as the victim, were discounted on the
ground that they were "interested" witnesses. [State of U.P. v.
Hakim Singh (1980)
of
Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979
(d) Where dying declaration of the deceased victim was
rejected by the High Court on an irrelevant ground that they
did not explain the injury found on one of the persons present
at the site of occurrence of the crime. [Arunachalam vs. P.S.R.
Sadhanantham (1979) 2 SCC 297]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ranjha Ram And Ors. on 19 August, 1986
(e) Where the High Court applied an unrealistic standard of
"implicit proof" rather than that of "proof beyond reasonable
doubt" and therefore evaluated the evidence in a flawed
manner. [State of U.P. v. Ranjha Ram (1986) 4 SCC 99]