High Court dismissed application for leave to appeal. Bench held no perversity or material irregularity in appellate court acquitting respondent of charges under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC due to doubtful presence of complainant at spot. Delay condoned but leave dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-A No.338 MA of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A No.338 MA of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:6.8.2012
Bhupinder Singh
....Applicant
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Mehar Singh, Advocate for the applicant *****
Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)
CRM No.24831 of 2011
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 25 days in refiling the application for leave to appeal is condoned.
CRM -A No.338 MA of 2011
CRM-A No.338 MA of 2011 (O&M) 2
Maharashtra 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 57 the Apex Court framed the guidelines for appellate court as to how to deal with in the matter of “appeal against acquittal”, which are as under:-
“Appeal against Acquittal:
CRM-A No.338 MA of 2011 (O&M) 3
basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. The nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity has to be taken into consideration. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused, and further, that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference with the decision of the Trial Court in a casual or cavalier manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for such interference. 24. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is ‘against the weight of evidence’, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See: Balak Ram & Anr . v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2165; Shailendra Pratap & Anr. v. State of U.P ., AIR 2003 SC 1104; Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P ., AIR 2006 SC 2500; S. Rama Krishna v . S. Rami Reddy (D) by his LRs. & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr. v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206; Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 445); and Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189).”
CRM-A No.338 MA of 2011 (O&M) 4
the accident had taken place. Therefore, the presence of Bhupinder Singh at the spot is doubtful. On rescannig the entire case, no evidence has come in the light of the Court, on the basis of which, the leave to appeal may be granted.
6.8.2012 gsv
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court should allow leave to appeal the appellate court's acquittal of the respondent in a bail or leave to appeal case
Whether the appellate court's finding disbelieving the presence of the complainant at the accident spot was perverse
Whether there are grounds of perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting the grant of leave to appeal
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶20
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 57
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhupinder Singh
State of Punjab
Another
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
