SC: Public Premises Act Prevails over State Rent Laws For Evicting Unauthorised Occupants  ||  SC: Doctors Were Unwavering Heroes in COVID-19, and Their Sacrifice Remains Indelible  ||  SC Sets Up Secondary Medical Board to Assess Passive Euthanasia Plea of Man in Vegetative State  ||  NCLAT: Amounts Listed As ‘Other Advances’ in Company’s Balance Sheet aren’t Financial Debt under IBC  ||  NCLT Ahmedabad: Objections to Coc Cannot Bar RP From Challenging Preferential Transactions  ||  J&K&L HC: Courts Should Exercise Caution When Granting Interim Relief in Public Infrastructure Cases  ||  Bombay HC: SARFAESI Sale Invalid if Sale Certificate is Not Issued Prior to IBC Moratorium  ||  Supreme Court: Police May Freeze Bank Accounts under S.102 CrPC in Prevention of Corruption Cases  ||  SC: Arbitrator’s Mandate Ends on Time Expiry; Substituted Arbitrator Must Continue After Extension  ||  SC: Woman May Move Her Department’s ICC For Harassment by Employee of Another Workplace    

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (17 Jul 2023)

In an appeal against acquittal, the power of the appellate court to reappreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation

MANU/SC/0774/2023

Criminal

Present appeal assails the judgment and order of the High Court. By the said order, though the delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court was condoned, the application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was rejected and in consequence the Government Appeal was dismissed.

It is trite law that, in an appeal against acquittal, the power of the appellate court to reappreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record.

In the instant case, the prosecution case rested on ocular account as well as on certain circumstances. Neither PW3 nor PW6 could identify any of the three Accused. They did not depose that the three policemen involved in the crime were those who were facing trial. Thus, there is no infirmity, much less perversity, in the view taken by the trial court that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6 is not of much help to the prosecution qua the three Accused facing trial.

The circumstances found proved do not constitute a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the Accused persons and no one else who committed the crime. In such a situation, there was no option for the trial court but to extend the benefit of doubt to the Accused. Present Court do not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter only for the High Court to rewrite the judgment as the same, would be an exercise in futility. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : EVIDENCE   ACQUITTAL   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved