Embedded Files
see also Appeal against acquittal
If the view taken by two courts is a reasonably possible view, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with a concurrent order of acquittal
If the view taken by two courts is a reasonably possible view, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with a concurrent order of acquittal
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal against order of acquittal - Though the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is very wide, it has been a rule of practice and prudence not to interfere with concurrent finding of facts arrived at by two courts, by a reappreciation of evidence, to arrive at its own conclusion, unless there has been complete mis appreciation of evidence, or there is gross perversity in arriving at the findings, causing serious miscarriage of justice. If the view taken by two courts is a reasonably possible view, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with a concurrent order of acquittal. State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 755, referred
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterised as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the view arrived at by the court below is perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with commission of the crime he is charged with." State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 755
Report abuse