TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal on the basis of the ocular and medical evidence, and whether the evidence disclosing an unlawful assembly and common object justified conviction of the appellants for murder and allied offences.
Analysis: The Court held that the trial court had adopted a perverse approach in rejecting the testimony of injured eyewitnesses on immaterial discrepancies and in treating corroborative deficiencies as fatal to the prosecution case. The Court reiterated that criminal cases are governed by proof beyond reasonable doubt, but that minor inconsistencies, omissions, or embellishments which do not strike at the core of the prosecution story do not warrant rejection of otherwise credible evidence. It further held that related or interested witnesses are not to be discarded mechanically, that the common object of an unlawful assembly may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, weapons used, and the conduct of the participants, and that non-explanation of injuries on an accused is only a relevant circumstance and not by itself sufficient to discredit the prosecution. The telephonic information relied upon as an FIR was found to be cryptic and not sufficient to displace the later prompt FIR recorded at the police station.
Conclusion: The reversal of acquittal was upheld in respect of the appellants named and consistently implicated by the injured eyewitnesses, and their conviction for offences arising out of the unlawful assembly was sustained. Appellants not consistently named or not adequately connected were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court may reverse an acquittal where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is perverse, and credible injured eyewitness testimony showing participation in an unlawful assembly and common object cannot be rejected merely for minor contradictions, while cryptic pre-FIR information and unexplained injuries on an accused do not by themselves displace the prosecution case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
