Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Appellate Courts Must Uphold Duty of Care in Appeals Against Acquittal -Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India underscored the importance of the duty of appellate courts in appeals against acquittal. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, emphasized the need for meticulous scrutiny of evidence and adherence to established principles.

The case in question involved the conviction of individuals under Part I of Section 304 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149. The appellants had previously been acquitted by the Trial Court, but the High Court overturned this decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The key takeaway from the judgment lies in the Court's observation regarding the role of the Appellate Court. The judgment states, "Appellate Jurisdiction – Duty of the Appellate Court in appeals against acquittal – Re-appreciation of evidence – Possibility of the Trial Court's view – High Court's failure to record reasons and findings – Appellate Court's duty to consider the reliability of prosecution witnesses and their demeanour."

In essence, the Appellate Court's responsibility is not merely to assess whether the Trial Court's view is correct or incorrect but to determine whether the Trial Court's view is a possible one based on the evidence at hand. This principle is pivotal when dealing with appeals against acquittals.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the significance of considering the demeanour of witnesses in the context of reliability. It noted that Trial Courts often have the advantage of closely observing witnesses during their testimony, which adds depth to their assessment of witness credibility.

The case also raised concerns about the investigation process, specifically regarding a grievous injury suffered by one of the accused. The judgment pointed out a serious lacuna in the prosecution's case due to the failure to investigate this injury thoroughly.

Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment and emphasized that the Trial Court's conclusions were possible based on the available evidence. As a result, the appellants were directed to be set at liberty unless detained in connection with another case.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2023

D. SUNDARA & ORS. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA       

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/26-Sep-2023_H.K.MARIYAPPA_Vs_State.pdf"]

Latest Legal News