Category: Acquittal

(CrPC) – Section 378 – Appeal in case of acquittal – – An Appellate Court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case – Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity – District judiciary is expected to be the foundational court, and therefore, should have the freedom of mind to decide a case on its own merit

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAN @SRINIVAS @ SEENA @TAILOR SEENA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh,…

(IPC) – Section 477A – Falsification of accounts – the prosecution must, therefore, prove—(a) that the accused destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified the books, electronic records, papers, writing, valuable security or account in question; (b) the accused did so in his capacity as a clerk, officer or servant of the employer; (c) the books, papers, etc. belong to or are in possession of his employer or had been received by him for or on behalf of his employer; (d) the accused did it wilfully and with intent to defraud.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

(IPC) – S 420 – Cheating & dishonestly inducing delivery of property – the mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution under Section 420 unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. It is equally important that for the purpose of holding a person guilty under Section 420, the evidence adduced must establish beyond reasonable doubt, mens rea on his part.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

(IPC) – Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent -‘criminal breach of trust’ is defined under Section 405 IPC which provides, inter alia, that whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over a property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property contrary to law, or in violation of any law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or contravenes any legal contract, express or implied, etc. shall be held to have committed criminal breach of trust

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

(IPC) – 120A, 120B, 107 and 109 – P C Act, 1988 – S 13(1)(e) r/with S 13(2) – Disproportionate Assets- no allegation of a legal act being done in an illegal manner – Therefore, the alleged offence under Section 120-B IPC against the respondent is also not made out from the charge-sheet – Terms of both the chargesheet and the final report, Respondent is not involved with the money trail or the transaction for the purchase of the property which was acquired by A-1, according to the prosecution – It is a fact that not only is the investigation complete, depositions of prosecution witnesses too have been recorded – There cannot be any question of introducing any further evidence – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBI — Appellant Vs. UTTAMCHAND BOHRA — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

(IPC) – Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 392, 307, 302 and 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25, 54 and 59 – Conspiracy -alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict the accused – Prosecution has failed to prove its case, that the appellant herein, has conspired with other accused for the offences for which he was charged – Except the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused and in absence of any other corroborative evidence, it is not safe to maintain the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVEEN @ SONU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal…

(IPC) – Ss 147, 148, 149, 201 and 302 – Unlawful assembly – Acquittal – Role assigned to appellant was only of having pointed out the house where the victim was hiding – Mere fact that the appellant was not brave enough to conceal where the victim was hiding did not make him a part of the unlawful assembly – Appellant is entitled to a clean acquittal in the given facts – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TAIJUDDIN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 307 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Attempt to murder – Using arms – Appellant-accused was admittedly a police official – Illegal use of a licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27, without proving the misdemeanour under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act. At best, it could be a ‘misconduct’ under the service rules, the determination of which was not the subject of the trial – No motive or element of planning has been proved by the Prosecution –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURINDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE (UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH) — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

HELD ” The evidence adduced is not separable and the common findings rendered shall be made applicable to all the accused. There are too many loopholes which cannot be filled up, nor is there any evidence to come to a different conclusion including that of exceeding the right of private defence. What emerged as a civil dispute between two groups of villagers turned into a criminal case, thus inclined to hold that the Accused-Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt as we also give our imprimatur to the plea of private defence as possible and plausible with due discharge of onus.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 392 and 397 – Disclosure statement – where the prosecution fails to inspire confidence in the manner and/or contents of the recovery with regard to its nexus to the alleged offence, the Court ought to stretch the benefit of doubt to the accused – Its nearly three centuries old cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer”. The doctrine of extending benefit of doubt to an accused, notwithstanding the proof of a strong suspicion, holds its fort on the premise that “the acquittal of a guilty person constitutes a miscarriage of justice just as much as the conviction of the innocent” .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BIJENDER @ MANDAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…

You missed