Appellate court`s interference with the order of Acquittal

advtanmoy 29/03/2018

Indian Law Encyclopedia

It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse i.e. the conclusions of the courts below are contrary to the evidence on record or its entire approach in dealing with the evidence is patently illegal, leading to miscarriage of justice or its judgment is unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case, the appellate court should interfere with the order of Acquittal. While doing so, the appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the Acquittal by the courts below bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.

(See: Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189; Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657; Brahm Swaroop and Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 280; S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 83; V.S. Achuthanandan v. R. Balakrishna Pillai and Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 317; State of M.P. v. Ramesh and Anr., (2011) 4 SCC 786; Abrar v. State of U.P., (2011) 2 SCC 750; and Rukia Begum and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 4 SCC 779)

 

Next Post

Whether the acceptance of a bribe by a police official with the object of weakening the prosecution case could be said under to be under `colour of duty' or in excess of his duty

Thu Mar 29 , 2018
The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venugopal and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 33, State of Maharashtra v. Narhar Rao, AIR 1966 SC 1783, State of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram AIR 1966 SC 1786 Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave and Anr. v. The State of Gujarat AIR 1968 SC 1323 The expression `colour of duty’ must now be examined in the facts […]

You May Like

  • A judge is the pillar of entire justice system and public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from a judge (SC-10/12/2019) - A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
  • A daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act of her father’s property if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023) - A Hindu daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act on the property of her father if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023)- [See Pritam Singh v. State, AIR (1950) SC 169: (1950) SCR 453, Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer AIR (1954) SC 462: (1954) SCR 1133, Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Employees, AIR (1959) SC 633: 1959 Supp (2) SCR 136: (1959) 1 LLJ 413, Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 331: (1983) SCC (L&S) 19, Taherakhatoon (dead) by LRs v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635]

Jurisprudence

Recent Updates

%d bloggers like this: