# State of U.P v. Devraj

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 248
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-04
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 967 of 1992
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-devraj-49647
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Sections 313 & 378 -
Appeal in case of acquittal, Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Rape - Powers
of the appellate Court against an order of
acquittal - while exercising appellate
powers,
even
if
two
reasonable
views/conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court - in acquittal appeals, the appellate
Court is not required to rewrite the
judgment or to give fresh reasonings,
when the reasons assigned by the Court
below
are
found
to
be
just
and
proper.(Para -11,12,13,14,18)
(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal in
case of acquittal - appellate court is
reversing
the
trial
court's
order
of
acquittal, it should give proper weight and
consideration
to
the
presumption
of
innocence in favour of accused, and to the
principle that such a presumption sands
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial court - judgment of acquittal,
where two views are possible, should not
be set aside, even if view formed by
appellate court may be a more probable
one, interference with acquittal can only
be justified when it is based on a perverse
view. (Para -22)

Accused-respondent tried for commission of
offence of rape - Chain incomplete - medical
evidence does not support prosecution -
particularly injury report and supplementary
report - acquittal - hence appeal . (Para - 23)

HELD:-Judgment
does
not
require
any
interference. Provisions of Section 375 read with
375(5) I.P.C permit court to concur with Session
judge. Record and proceedings sent back to the
Court below. (Para -23,24,25)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. In the present case, both the
children being adults, compensation for the
loss of parental consortium would not be
payable. The claimant would, however, be
entitled to compensation for the loss of
spousal consortium.

25. However, so far as the loss of
estate
and
financial
expenses
are
concerned, that has to be awarded in one
set, according to the rule in Pranay Sethi.
Thus, the awarded compensation under the
conventional heads, as determined by the
Tribunal, is erroneous and the same too has
to be modified.

26. In view of the principles
applicable
for
the
determination
of
compensation payable to the claimant and
the other dependents, this Court proceeds to
work out the same as follows :

(i)
Monthly Income (of
the deceased)
= 4914/-
(ii)
Monthly
Income+Future
Prospects
(monthly
income x 20%) =
4914+983
= 5897/-
(iii
)
Annual Income (of
the
deceased)
=
5897x12
= 70,764/-
(iv
)
Annual Dependency
= Annual Income -
one-third
deduction
towards
personal
expenses
of
the
deceased = 7076423588
= 47,176/-
(v)
Total Dependency =
Annual Dependency
x Applied Multiplier
= 47,176x9
= 4,24,584/
-
(vi
)
Claimants'
entitlement
towards
= 70,000/-
conventional heads =
Loss of Estate +
Funeral Expenses +
dependents'
Consortium
=15000+15000+4000
0
The total compensation
would therefore, work out
to
a
figure
of
Rs.
4,24,584+ Rs. 70,000
= 5,74,584/
-

27. In the result, this appeal is
allowed in part. The impugned award
passed by the Tribunal is modified and the
compensation awarded enhanced to Rs.
5,74,584/-. The aforesaid sum of money
shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of institution of
the claim petition, until realization. Any
sum of money already deposited with the
Tribunal by the Insurers, pursuant to the
impugned award or the interim orders
passed by this Court, shall be adjusted
against the award. The other directions of
the Tribunal in the award shall remain
intact. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 248
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Government Appeal No. 967 of 1992

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Devraj ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Devraj
249
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri D.N. Wali, Sri Bhuvanesh Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Sections 313 & 378 -
Appeal in case of acquittal, Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Rape - Powers
of the appellate Court against an order of
acquittal - while exercising appellate
powers,
even
if
two
reasonable
views/conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court - in acquittal appeals, the appellate
Court is not required to rewrite the
judgment or to give fresh reasonings,
when the reasons assigned by the Court
below
are
found
to
be
just
and
proper.(Para -11,12,13,14,18)
(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal in
case of acquittal - appellate court is
reversing
the
trial
court's
order
of
acquittal, it should give proper weight and
consideration
to
the
presumption
of
innocence in favour of accused, and to the
principle that such a presumption sands
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial court - judgment of acquittal,
where two views are possible, should not
be set aside, even if view formed by
appellate court may be a more probable
one, interference with acquittal can only
be justified when it is based on a perverse
view. (Para -22)

Accused-respondent tried for commission of
offence of rape - Chain incomplete - medical
evidence does not support prosecution -
particularly injury report and supplementary
report - acquittal - hence appeal . (Para - 23)

HELD:-Judgment
does
not
require
any
interference. Provisions of Section 375 read with
375(5) I.P.C permit court to concur with Session
judge. Record and proceedings sent back to the
Court below. (Para -23,24,25)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:-

1. M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs St. of
Kerala & anr, (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39 Vs

2. Chandrappa Vs St. of Karn., (2007) 4 S.C.C.
415

3. St. of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran & anr., (2007)
3 S.C.C. 75

4. St. of U.P. Vs Ram Veer Singh & ors, 2007
A.I.R.S.C.W. 5553

5. Girja Prasad (dead) by l.R.S Vs St. of M.P.,
2007 A.I.R.S.C.W. 5589

6. luna Ram Vs Bhupat Singh & ors., (2009) SCC
749

7. Mookkiah & anr. Vs St., Rep. by the Inspector
of Police, Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 321

8. St. of Karn. Vs Hemareddy, AIR 1981, sc
1417

9. Shivasharanappa & ors. Vs St. of Karn., JT
2013 (7) sc 66

10. St. of Punj. Vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma,
(2013) 14 SCC 153

11. Jayaswamy Vs St. of Karn., (2018) 7 SCC
219

12. Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan Vs St. of Guj.,
(2020) 14 SC 750

13. Samsul Haque Vs St. of Assam, (2019) 18
SCC 161

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned
A.G.A. for the State. None present for the
original accused. This is a Government
Appeal of the year 1992 listed time and
again.
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. This appeal under Section 378 of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), at the
behest of the State, has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
28.2.1992 passed by learned Special Judge,
Bijnor acquitting accused-respondent who
was tried for commission of offence under
Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 1/2.07.1990 at about
midnight
accused
who
was
sleeping
outstairs told the prosecutrix-Manju that
her sister Anneta wife of deceased was
suffering from Cholera and was taken to
Bijnor and she too had to follow them to
Bijnor but when prosecutrix came down the
stairs accused Devraj flashed a knife and
forcibly pulled the prosecutrix inside the
room and committed rape on her.

4. The F.I.R culminated into chargesheet and accused were committed to
Sessions.

5. On being summoned, the accusedperson pleaded not guilty and wanted to be
tried. The offence for which accused was
charged was triable by the Court of
Sessions, hence, the accused-respondents
were committed to the Court of Sessions.
The learned Sessions Judge framed charge
for commission of offence punishable
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC).

6. The Trial started and the
prosecution
examined
4
witnesses
enumerated as below:

1
Deposition of Manju
PW1
2
 '' Anita
PW 2
3
 '' Dr. PW3
Smt. Jebunisa Khan
4
 '' Gulzar
PW4

7. In support of ocular version
following documents were filed:

1
Written Report
Ex.Ka.1
2
Recovery Memo of
''Peticot' and Injury
report
Ex.Ka.2
3
Supplementary
Report
Ex.Ka.3
4
Site Plan with Index
Ex.Ka.4
5
Recovery Memo of
''Kaccha'
Ex.Ka.5
6
F.I.R
Ex.Ka.7
7
Report
of
Vidhi
Vigyan Prayogshala
Ex.Ka.10

8. At the end of the trial and after
recording the statement of the accused
persons under section 313 Cr.P.C., and
hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution
and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge
acquitted the respondents as mentioned
above.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State has
submitted that the order of acquittal is not
justified in the eye of law as the prosecution
had very well established the case against the
accused. It is further submitted by learned
A.G.A. that the learned Sessions Judge has
misread the evidence. Learned A.G.A. has
lastly submitted the judgment impugned is
erroneous and liable to be set aside.

10. Before we embark on testimony and
the judgment of the Court below, the
contours for interfering in criminal appeals
where accused has been held to be non guilty
would require to be discussed.

11. The principles which would
govern and regulate the hearing of an
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Devraj
251
appeal by this Court, against an order of
acquittal passed by the trial Court, have
been very succinctly explained by the Apex
Court in catena of decisions. In the case of
"M.S. NARAYANA MENON @ MANI
VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANR",
(2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has
narrated the powers of the High Court in
appeal against the order of acquittal. In
para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has
observed as under:

"54. In any event the High Court
entertained an appeal treating to be an
appeal against acquittal, it was in fact
exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even
while exercising an appellate power
against a judgment of acquittal, the High
Court should have borne in mind the well
settled principles of law that where two
view are possible, the appellate Court
should not interfere with the finding of
acquittal recorded by the Court below."

12.

Further,
in
the
case
of
"CHANDRAPPA
Vs.
STATE
OF
KARNATAKA", reported in (2007) 4
S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court laid down the
following principles;

"42. From the above decisions, in
our considered view, the following general
principles
regarding
powers
of
the
appellate Court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:

[1] An appellate Court has full
power
to
review,
re-appreciate
and
reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.

[2]
The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
puts
no
limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate Court on the
evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
law.

[3] Various expressions, such
as,"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
curtain extensive powers of an appellate
Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasis the
reluctance of an appellate Court to
interfere with acquittal than to curtail the
power of the Court to review the evidence
and to come to its own conclusion.

[4] An appellate Court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of acquittal
there is double presumption in favour of the
accused.
Firstly,
the
presumption
of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental
principle
of
criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial Court.

[5] If two reasonable conclusions
are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court."

13. Thus, it is a settled principle that
while exercising appellate powers, even if
two
reasonable
views/conclusions
are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court.

14. In the case titled "STATE OF
GOA Vs. SANJAY THAKRAN &
ANR.", reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75,
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of
the High Court in appeals against acquital.
In para 16 of the said decision, the Court
has observed as under:

"16.
From
the
aforesaid
decisions, it is apparent that while
exercising the powers in appeal against the
order of acquittal the Court of appeal
would not ordinarily interfere with the
order of acquittal unless the approach of
the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion
arrived at would not be arrived at by any
reasonable person and, therefore, the
decision is to be characterized as perverse.
Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view
which would upset the judgment delivered
by the Court below. However, the appellate
Court has a power to review the evidence if
it is of the view that the conclusion arrived
at by the Court below is perverse and the
Court has committed a manifest error of
law and ignored the material evidence on
record. A duty is cast upon the appellate
Court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on
record to find out whether any of the
accused is connected with the commission
of the crime he is charged with."

15. Similar principle has been laid
down by the Apex Court in cases titled
"STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS.
RAM VEER SINGH & ORS.", 2007
A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in "GIRJA
PRASAD (DEAD) BY L.R.s VS. STATE
OF MP", 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus,
the powers, which this Court may exercise
against an order of acquittal, are well settled.

16. In the case of "LUNA RAM VS.
BHUPAT SINGH AND ORS.", reported
in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para
10 and 11 has held as under:

"10. The High Court has noted
that the prosecution version was not clearly
believable. Some of the so called eye
witnesses stated that the deceased died
because his ankle was twisted by an
accused.
Others
said
that
he
was
strangulated. It was the case of the
prosecution that the injured witnesses were
thrown out of the bus. The doctor who
conducted the postmortem and examined
the witnesses had categorically stated that
it was not possible that somebody would
throw a person out of the bus when it was
in running condition.

11. Considering the parameters
of appeal against the judgment of acquittal,
we are not inclined to interfere in this
appeal. The view of the High Court cannot
be termed to be perverse and is a possible
view on the evidence."

17. In a recent decision of the Apex
Court in the case titled "MOOKKIAH
AND ANR. VS. STATE, REP. BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL
NADU", reported in AIR 2013 SC 321,
the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under:

"4. It is not in dispute that the
trial Court, on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence led in by the
prosecution and defence, acquitted the
accused in respect of the charges leveled
against them. On appeal by the State, the
High Court, by impugned order, reversed
the said decision and convicted the accused
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel
for the appellants very much emphasized
that the High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in upsetting the order of
acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Devraj
253
scope and power of the High Court in an
appeal filed against the order of acquittal.
This Court in a series of decisions has
repeatedly laid down that as the first
appellate court the High Court, even while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal,
was also entitled, and obliged as well, to
scan through and if need be reappreciate
the entire evidence, though while hoosing
to interfere only the court should find an
absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis
of the evidence on record and not merely
because the High Court could take one
more possible or a different view only.
Except the above, where the matter of the
extent and depth of consideration of the
appeal is concerned, no distinctions or
differences in approach are envisaged in
dealing with an appeal as such merely
because one was against conviction or the
other against an acquittal. [Vide State of
Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others,
(2004) 5 SCC 573]"

18. It is also a settled legal position
that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court
is not required to rewrite the judgment or to
give fresh reasonings, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to
be just and proper. Such principle is laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
"STATE
OF
KARNATAKA
VS.
HEMAREDDY", AIR 1981, SC 1417,
wherein it is held as under:

"...This Court has observed in
Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:(AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate
Court on the evidence to repeat the
narration of the evidence or to reiterate the
reasons given by the trial Court expression
of general agreement with the reasons
given by the Court the decision of which is
under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

19.

The
Apex
Court
in
"SHIVASHARANAPPA & ORS. VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA", JT 2013
(7) SC 66 has held as under:

"That
appellate
Court
is
empowered to reappreciate the entire
evidence, though, certain other principles
are also to be adhered to and it has to be
kept in mind that acquittal results into
double presumption of innocence."

20. Further, in the case of "STATE
OF PUNJAB VS. MADAN MOHAN
LAL VERMA", (2013) 14 SCC 153, the
Apex Court has held as under:

"The law on the issue is well
settled that demand of illegal gratification
is sine qua non for constituting an offence
under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of
tainted money is not sufficient to convict
the accused when substantive evidence in
the case is not reliable, unless there is
evidence to prove payment of bribe or to
show that the money was taken voluntarily
as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by
the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt,
in the absence of any evidence with regard
to demand and acceptance of the amount as
illegal gratification. Hence, the burden
rests on the accused to displace the
statutory presumption raised under Section
20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record
evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to
establish with reasonable probability, that
the money was accepted by him, other than
as a motive or reward as referred to in
Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking
the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the
court
is
required
to
consider
the
explanation offered by the accused, if any,
only on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability and not on the touchstone of
proof
beyond
all
reasonable
doubt.
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
However, before the accused is called upon
to explain how the amount in question was
found in his possession, the foundational
facts
must
be
established
by
the
prosecution.
The
complainant
is
an
interested and partisan witness concerned
with the success of the trap and his
evidence must be tested in the same way as
that of any other interested witness. In a
proper case, the court may look for
independent
corroboration
before
convincing the accused person."

21. The Apex Court recently in
Jayaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, (2018)
7 SCC 219, has laid down the powers of
appellate court in re-appreciating the
evidence in a case where the State has
preferred an appeal against acquittal, which
read as follows:

"10.It is by now well settled that
the Appellate Court hearing the appeal
filed against the judgment and order of
acquittal will not overrule or otherwise
disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if the
Appellate Court does not find substantial
and compelling reasons for doing so. If the
Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the
facts is palpably wrong; if the Trial Court's
decision was based on erroneous view of
law; if the Trial Court's judgment is likely
to result in grave miscarriage of justice; if
the entire approach of the Trial Court in
dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal; if the Trial Court judgment was
manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if
the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has
ignored material documents like dying
declaration/report of the ballistic expert
etc. the same may be construed as
substantial and compelling reasons and the
first appellate court may interfere in the
order of acquittl. However, if the view
taken by the Trial Court while acquitting
the accused is one of the possible views
under the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Appellate Court generally will not
interfere with the order of acquittal
particularly
in
the
absence
of
the
aforementioned factors.

.........................It is relevant to
note the observations of this Court in the
case of Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath
Jha & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606, which
reads thus:

"21.There is no embargo on the
appellate court reviewing the evidence
upon which an order of acquittal is based.
Generally, the order of acquittal shall not
be interfered with because the presumption
of innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by acquittal. The golden
thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases
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. The
paramount consideration of the court is to
ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which
may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no
less than from the conviction of an
innocent. In a case where admissible
evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
appellate
court
to
re-appreciate
the
evidence in a case where the accused has
been
acquitted,
for
the
purpose
of
ascertaining as to whether any of the
accused committed any offence or not."

22. The Apex Court recently in
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of
Gujarat, (2020) 14 SC 750, has held that
the appellate court is reversing the trial
court's order of acquittal, it should give
proper weight and consideration to the
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Radhey Shyam & Ors.
255
presumption of innocence in favour of
accused, and to the principle that such a
presumption sands reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court and in
Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, (2019)
18 SCC 161 held that judgment of
acquittal, where two views are possible,
should not be set aside, even if view
formed by appellate court may be a more
probable one, interference with acquittal
can only be justified when it is based on a
perverse view.

23. We have perused the depositions of
prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence
supporting
ocular
versions,
arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties. We
have been taken through the record. We are
unable to accept the submissions of the State
counsel for the following reasons and the
judgments of the Apex Court which lay down
the criteria for consideration of appeals against
acquittal. The chain has been found to be
incomplete. While going through the judgment
and the evidence of the witnesses we are very
clear that the medical evidence does not support
the case of prosecution more particularly
evidence at Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 which is injury
report and supplementary report, therefore, we
are of the considered opinion that the judgment
does not require any interference. The decisions
on which reliance has been placed by the
learned Judge would also apply in full force to
the facts of this case. The provisions of Section
375 read with 375(5) I.P.C will also permit us
to concur with the court below. Thus we concur
the findings of the court below.

24. Hence, in view of the matter & on the
contours of the judgment of the Apex Court, we
concur with the learned Sessions Judge.

25. The appeal sans merits and is
dismissed. The record and proceedings be
sent back to the Court below. The bail and
bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled.

26. We are thankful to learned A.G.A.
for ably assisting the Court.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 255
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Government Appeal No. 1581 of 1986

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Radhey Shyam & Ors.
 ...Accused Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.A.N. Shah, Sri Akshay Kumar Shukla,
Sri Ravindra Pal Singh Kashy

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
The
Code
of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections
313 & 378 - Appeal in case of acquittal,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
302/34 - Murder - Powers of the
appellate Court against an order of
acquittal - while exercising appellate
powers,
even
if
two
reasonable
views/conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court - in acquittal appeals, the
appellate Court is not required to
rewrite the judgment or to give fresh
reasonings, when the reasons assigned
by the Court below are found to be just
and proper. (Para -9, 10, 11, 14)