TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court refuses leave to appeal acquittal, upholds presumption of innocence.</h1> <h3>State (Govt. of Delhi) Versus Rajbir Singh and Ors.</h3> The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal but refused to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal. The court upheld the trial court's ... - Issues Involved:1. Condensation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Merits of the acquittal judgment by the trial court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Condensation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The State sought condensation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment of acquittal. The delay was attributed to the procedural routing of the file through various levels, causing a delay of 73 days, which the respondents contested as 193 days. The court examined the term 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, referencing various precedents. It was emphasized that sufficient cause must be beyond the control of the party and not due to negligence. The court cited Supreme Court judgments, including *Ramlal v. Coalfields Ltd.* and *Union of India v. Ram Charan*, which highlighted that sufficient cause must be shown to advance substantial justice. The court also referenced *Collector, Land Acquisition, Anatnag v. Mst. Katiji*, which underscored that the judiciary should aim to remove injustice rather than adhere to technicalities. Given the justice-oriented approach and the procedural delays, the court found sufficient cause to condone the delay.2. Merits of the Acquittal Judgment by the Trial Court:The court then addressed whether leave to file the appeal should be granted. The trial court had acquitted the respondents, noting that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court observed that only interested witnesses were produced, despite claims that many public witnesses were present. Additionally, there were conflicting versions of the incident's location, with some witnesses stating it occurred in a small room and others at Bawana Chowk. The trial court found these discrepancies significant enough to doubt the prosecution's case.The High Court reiterated the principles from *Prandas v. The State* and *Sheo Swarup v. Emperor*, emphasizing the High Court's cautious approach in overturning acquittals. The appellate court should respect the trial court's advantage of observing witness demeanor and the presumption of innocence. The High Court also referenced *Ramabhupala Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh*, which affirmed the appellate court's power to review evidence but stressed the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal.In this case, the High Court found that the trial court's reasoning was neither perverse nor implausible. Given the presumption of innocence and the trial court's detailed analysis, the High Court concluded that no other view was warranted. Therefore, the application for leave to file the appeal was rejected.Conclusion:The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal but refused the leave to appeal against the acquittal, upholding the trial court's judgment due to the lack of compelling reasons to overturn it.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
