State of Tamilnadu Rep.by v. Sathish
Case brief
What is this about?
The Single Judge High Court granted leave to the State to appeal against the acquittal of several accused persons. The court noted the acquittal lacked specific findings on crucial eyewitness evidence regarding their presence and participation in the crime under Section 302 IPC.
What did the court decide?
Leave to appeal against the acquittal judgment is granted.
What the court decided
Crl.OP.No.22317 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.40751 of 2024
Crl.OP.No.22317 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.40751 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to grant leave to file an appeal against the acquittal judgment passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Court at Cuddalore in S.C.No.31 of 2019 dated 28.04.2023.
- The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would mainly contend
that the Trial Court has erred in not considering the vital evidence of P.W.1, who is an eye witness in the seen of occurrence.
- The evidence of P.W.1 reveals that all the accused acquitted by
the Trial Court are named and their participation also has been specifically deposed by P.W.1 before the Trial Court. However, there is no finding with reference to the deposition of P.W.1 naming the accused persons, who have been acquitted by the Trial Court.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should grant leave to appeal where the trial court failed to give specific findings on the deposition of an eye witness naming acquitted accused persons charged under Section 30
Coram
S.M. Subramaniam
M. Jothiraman
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court