Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused on the basis of the dying declaration and surrounding evidence.
Analysis: The trial court had found the dying declaration unsafe to rely upon because it was not recorded in the maker's own words, the recording process raised doubt, there was overwriting in the timing, and two names appeared to have been inserted in different ink. The eye-witnesses had turned hostile, and the medical and recording witnesses did not conclusively establish the reliability of the statement. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is not warranted where the view taken by the trial court is a possible view and the accused remains entitled to the reinforced presumption of innocence and the benefit of doubt.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in upsetting the acquittal; the conviction was set aside and the trial court's acquittal was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is permissible only when the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable; a dying declaration recorded with serious doubts about authenticity and credibility cannot safely displace an acquittal when the trial court's view is a possible one.