Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

In Appeal re­appreciated the entire evidence on record is must – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex court in this case observed that the while hearing the first appeal against acquittal High Court has not at all discussed and/or re­appreciated the entire evidence on record. In fact, the High Court has only made the general observations on the deposition of the witnesses examined. 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

Facts of the case - Trial Court convicted respondent Nos.2 to 4 punishable under Sections 452, 323, 325, 34 of the Indian Penal Code  but acquitted them for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) SCST Act .Victim filed appeal in the  High Court  but same was dismissed in one page/paragraph order . Appellant approached the Apex Court.

Supreme Court made further observation that there is no re­appreciation of entire evidence on record in detail, which ought to have been done by the High Court, being a first appellate court.

And judgment and order passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside and the  remanded back to the High Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.

Sections 354, 504, 506 452, 323, 325, 34 IPC, Section 3 SCST Act Section 378 Cr.PC – Appeal remand back - Trial Court convicted respondent Nos.2 to 4 punishable under Sections 452, 323, 325, 34 of the Indian Penal Code - acquitted them for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) SCST Act - victim filed appeal - High Court dismissed in one page/paragraph order – Appeal to Supreme Court -  observed – High Court made general observations - required to re­appreciate the entire evidence - decision of the High Court erroneous as it ignored the settled legal position – Appeal Allowed -directed - High Court decide and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

January, 18th 2022

Geeta Devi  Versus State of U.P. & Ors.   

Latest Legal News