A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Section 378—Appeal against acquittal—The High Court has the power to review and reconsider evidence but must respect the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused following acquittal by the trial court—Interference is justified only if the trial court’s approach suffers from manifest illegality, the conclusion is perverse, or material evidence was ignored—If two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal (Paras 11–16, 30–32). B. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)—Sections 302, 324, 504, 147, 148, 149—Murder, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, and rioting—The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—Inconsistent and contradictory statements by star wit...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 378—Appeal Against Acquittal—Scope of Interference—In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the High Court may review and reappreciate the entire evidence; however, it must bear in mind the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused—Interference is unwarranted where the trial court’s view is a possible and reasonable conclusion based on the evidence on record (A). Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 498A, 114—Murder and Cruelty—Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt—Though medical evidence established homicidal death by burns, the prosecution failed to prove the identity and role of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to absence of reliable direct or corroborative evidence and material weaknesses in the case (C). Evide...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Appeal Against Acquittal / Appreciation of Evidence / Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act A. Criminal Appeal—Section 378 CrPC—Appellate court powers—While the High Court has full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider evidence in an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only if the trial Court’s judgment suffers from patent perversity, ignores material evidence, or no reasonable view other than conviction is possible. (Paras 13–16) B. Evidence—Contradictions and omissions—Complainant, witnesses, and panchas presented inconsistent statements; injury-causing weapon not properly identified; prosecution failed to establish direct evidence connecting accused with alleged offences. (Paras 8.1–8.9...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100; Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Sections 5, 6, 8, 54; Registration Act, 1908—Section 17; Evidence Act, 1872; Limitation Act, 1963—Second Appeal—Scope, Family Settlement, Transfer of Property, and Revenue Records—Held, that in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts only if they are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, contrary to settled law, or arrived at without evidence; mere reappreciation to adopt another view is impermissible—Transfer of immovable property exceeding Rs. 100 requires a registered instrument under the Transfer of Property and Registration Acts; mere mutation or revenue entries do not create or extinguish title and have no presumptive value—The theory o...

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925—Sections 372, 373(3), 384, 388 & 381—Succession certificate—Scope and nature—Proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary in nature—Court required to grant certificate to person having prima facie best title—Where rival claims involve intricate and disputed questions of fact (validity of marriage, legitimacy of heirs), court may nevertheless grant certificate under S.373(3)—Grant of certificate does not decide title or heirship and does not bar subsequent civil proceedings—Certificate merely authorises collection of dues and affords indemnity to debtor. [Paras 18–24] B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 115—Revisional jurisdiction—Interference with concurrent findings—High Court in revision cannot rea...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 378—Legally enforceable debt—Money lending without licence—Acquittal—Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.—Held, complainant admittedly engaged in money lending business but failed to produce valid money lending licence—No documentary proof of advancement of loan—Transaction not reflected in income tax returns—Loan advanced without requisite licence not legally enforceable—Object hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act—Absence of legally enforceable debt, essential ingredient of Section 138 not satisfied—Trial Court’s view reasonable and not perverse—No interference warranted in appeal against acquittal. [Paras 8.1, 8.2, 9, 10, 11] Result : Acquit...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Legally enforceable debt—Locus standi—Failure to prove proprietorship and dishonour—Appeal against acquittal—Scope of interference—Held, complainant failed to establish that he was the proprietor/payee of the firm in whose name cheque was issued—No documentary proof of proprietorship or payment from firm’s account—Cheque and return memo not duly proved—Failure to examine material witnesses and to prove dishonour of cheque—Statutory requirements under Section 138 not satisfied—No perversity in trial Court’s acquittal—Limited scope of interference in appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.—Appeal dismissed. [Paras 8.1 to 8.5, 9, 10, 11] Result : Acquittal upheld ...

Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 201, 366, 376(D)—Appeal—Conviction and Death Sentence—Circumstantial Evidence—‘Last Seen Together’—Extrajudicial Confession—Medical Evidence—DNA Evidence—Discovery—Presumption of Innocence A. Appeal against conviction and death sentence for murder and gang rape—Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including ‘last seen’ theory, extrajudicial confession, medical history, and DNA analysis—Court found the chain of circumstances incomplete and evidence unreliable; accused acquitted due to failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para A) B. Circumstantial evidence—Inference of guilt permissible only if all incriminating facts are proved and incompatible with innocence; suspicion cannot subs...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 378; Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 504; Evidence Act, 1872—Sole Eyewitness—Acquittal Appeal: High Court’s interference with acquittal is limited and permissible only when findings are perverse, unreasonable, or contrary to evidence—In cases where conviction relies solely on the testimony of one eyewitness, the witness must be reliable, credible, and of ‘sterling quality.’ Material contradictions, omissions, and post-hoc improvements in the testimony, coupled with circumstances such as darkness at the time of incident, may render the testimony untrustworthy—Even if medical evidence confirms homicidal death, it is insufficient to sustain conviction absent credible ocular or corroborative evidence linking the accused—The presumption of innocenc...

Electricity Law—Theft of Electricity—Supplementary Bill; Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Sections 9, 100—Second Appeal: Where a supplementary bill is issued for unauthorized use or theft of electricity, the aggrieved consumer must challenge it through the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy—If the statutory appeal is not availed, the bill attains finality—Consequently, in a recovery suit filed by the Electricity Board for dues under such an unchallenged bill, the Civil Court cannot adjudicate the legality or validity of the bill for the first time—Erroneous dismissal of the recovery suit on the ground of alleged invalidity of the bill constitutes a grave error of law—The High Court can set aside concurrent findings and rema...