Sign In
Notification
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
    • Supreme Court
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
  • Quick Recall
    • Arms Act
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • Evidence
    • Drugs Act
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
    • Pocso
    • MCOP
    • Writ
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • 3 judge bench
  • Resources
    • Notes
      • Cr.P.C 1973
      • Crimes
    • Articles
      • P.G.Rajagopal (Judge Rtd)
      • Ad. Ramprakash Rajagopal
      • Ad. Karunanithi
      • Ad. Ravindran Raghunathan
      • Ad. James Raja
      • Ad. M.S.Parthiban
      • Ad. Rajavel
      • Ad. Azhar Basha
    • Digest
      • Monthly Digest
      • Weekly digest
      • Subject wise
    • Bare Acts
      • BSA 2023
      • BNS 2023
      • BNSS 2023
  • Must Read
  • Author’s note
  • E-Booklet
    • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Civil
    • s. 91 cpc
  • My Bookmarks
Reading: Reversal of acquittal: Procedure explained
Share
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
  • Acquittal
  • Digest
  • Resources
Search
  • Latest
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
    • Supreme Court
  • Quick Recall
    • Evidence
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • Pocso
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • Digest
    • Monthly Digest
    • Weekly digest
  • Resources
    • Notes
    • Articles
  • 3 judge bench
  • Must have
  • Author’S Note
  • E-Booklet
  • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Mobile APP
  • My Bookmarks

Get Notifications

Notification
Follow US
> Latest> Supreme Court> Reversal of acquittal: Procedure explained

Reversal of acquittal: Procedure explained

Reversal of acquittal: Procedure explained
Ramprakash Rajagopal February 25, 2023 5 Min Read
Share
Points
ConclusionParty

7. In cases where a reversal of acquittal is sought, the courts must keep in mind that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, on grounds of it surviving the rigours of a full trial, is strengthened and stands fortified. The prosecution then, while still working under the same burden of proof, is required to discharge a more onerous responsibility to annul and reverse the fortified presumption of innocence. This fortification of the presumption of innocence has been held in a catena of judgments by this court.

8. In the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat [2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 748], this Court has held that in cases of reversal of acquittal, where two views are possible, the view which favors the accused has to be adopted. For the sake of Convenience, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is being produced hereunder:

“The settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal because with the passing of an order of acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced. The High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial court. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”

9. Further, in the case of Suman Chandra Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation [Criminal Appeal No.1645 of 2021] wherein the acquittal of the accused was challenged, this court held that while exercising its powers to reverse an acquittal, the order of the trial court must not only be erroneous, but also perverse and unreasonable. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is being extracted herein:

“It is well settled law that reversal of acquittal is permissible only if the view of the Trial Court is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the Trial Court was a possible view, which was neither perverse nor unreasonable, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, ought not to have been reversed or interfered with by the High Court.”

10. Similarly in the case of Mrinal Das & Others Vs. The State of Tripura3, this Court held that interference in a judgment of acquittal can only be made if the judgment is “clearly unreasonable” and there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for reversing the acquittal. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is being reproduced herein:

“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed”.

Points

Toggle
    • Conclusion
    • Party
  • Subject Study
Conclusion

11. As can be seen from the above-mentioned judgments, an additional layer of protection is granted to an accused in cases where the accused already enjoys an acquittal. In the present case, we are in agreement with the decision of the High Court. From a perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, it can be seen that no perversity has been committed by the Trial Court while reaching its conclusion. All the evidence on record has been carefully perused and a detailed analysis has been carried out to come to the conclusion.

12. In such circumstance, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Trial Court as well as the High Court. As a consequence, the appeal stands dismissed.

Party

ROOPWANTI vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1904 OF 2014 – 24TH FEBRUARY, 2023.

roopwanti-vs.-state-of-haryanan

Subject Study

  • Section 27 IEA: I.O did not narrate the exact words spoken by the accused while making a disclosure statement
  • Section 138 NI Act: Cheque filled by the complainant is not forgery
  • Murder case: Based on injuries in the evidence it is doubtful that deceased would have met the witnesses
  • Bail refused till recording of statements of protected witnesses
  • Section 498A IPC: Cruelty case: Court must be careful and curtail the tendency of implicating husband and his immediate relations in complaint which is not uncommon also high court has power to quash the fir even after filing of charge sheet
  • Murder: Common intention (section 34 IPC) & Appreciation of eye-witness: Explained
  • Detailed analysis of the test identification parade
  • Murder case acquittal: Alcohol presence is in the body and chance of fell from a grown high tree

Further Study

Police has the bounden duty to register fir once direction received under section 156(3) Cr.P.C

POCSO: Acquittal: Less IQ for the victim

Compensation over incarceration in special circumstance of 11 years after the incident

Conditions on AB: No impossible and Impracticable conditions shall be imposed while granting Anticipatory bail

Even when incriminating circumstances were read over and questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused had failed to put forth his defense at the relevant point of time

Previous Article Powers of constitutional courts to transfer, or order further investigation: explained
Next Article Discovery of fact is admissible unless there is compulsion
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Study

extortion

Section 386 IPC is an act itself but section 387 IPC is the process or stage before committing an offence of extortion

Ramprakash Rajagopal June 9, 2025
Unless there is irregularity in funding from international sources either U.P Act or IPC do not prohibit gatherings or doing charity work in the name of religion
Running an impugned Finance company is not a ground to label the owner as a Notorious Goonda
Since no provocation nor blow stuck by mistake or accident section 300 Exception- 1 would not attract
Complainant in cheque case is a victim: The Supreme Court’s Path-Breaking Judgment on 8th April 2025: “How It Changed the Way I See Justice”

Related Study

Section 306 IPC [s.45 BNS]: Duty of realising outstanding loans for employer cannot be said to have instigated to commit suicide
January 19, 2025
Quashing FIR based on settlement in special statute like PC Act would impact the society at large 
December 21, 2024
Employer-Employee: Complaint (employee) does not indicate that the appellants (employers) used filthy language
January 28, 2025
Acquittal: Prosecution ought to have exhibited the original postal cover and not the copy even if it bore the signature of appellant
March 5, 2025
Defence counsels don’t worry I teach you to take defence
January 8, 2023

About

Section1.in is all about the legal updates in Criminal and Corporate Laws. This website also gives opportunity to publish your (readers/users) articles subject to the condition of being edited (only if necessary) by the team of Advocates. Kindly send your articles to paperpageindia@gmail.com or WhatsApp to +919361570190.
  • Quick Links
  • Team
  • Terms
  • Cancellation Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • My Bookmarks
  • Founder

section1.in is powered by Paperpage.             A product of © Paperpage Internet Services. All Rights Reserved. 

Subscribe Newsletter for free

Subscribe to our newsletter to get judgments instantly!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

ஓர்ந்துகண் ணோடாது இறைபுரிந்து யார்மாட்டும் தேர்ந்துசெய் வஃதே முறை [541].

_திருவள்ளுவர்
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?