Karnataka Court June 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Karnataka Vs. Jagappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ981
1. We have heard the learned Addl. SPP on merits in this appeal. Though there is IA-I for condonation of delay of 31 days, normally, the Court would have issued notice to respondent on IA-I and then taken up the main appeal for consideration, we have for the reasons set out below, examined the appeal on merits because one of the predominant factors which weighs with the Court while condoning the delay is the question as to how very strong and sustainable the appeal is on merits. In a case where it does appear to the Court that the appeal is very valid and that prima facie interference with the order of acquittal is necessary because there appears to be enough material to sustain a conviction, merely because there is some delay, the Court would not refuse to condone the delay. We are, out of a sense of responsibility required to reverse the position insofar as if the appeal appears to be weak on merits and if there appears to be virtually no grounds on which the order of acquittal could...
State of Karnataka Vs. Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4146
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1.We have heard the learned Addl. SPP on merits in this appeal, the reason being that We desire to satisfy ourselves on 'merits that the State has made out a valid case for interference with the order of acquittal. It being the premise of law that once the trial Court has recorded an order of acquittal after having the benefit of weighing the oral and medical evidence and having gone through the exercise of a first hand assessment of the evidence; that the Appellant Court would necessarily have to be circumspect before interfering with the order of acquittal, barring instances where material evidence has either been ignored or misread or where the order of acquittal is downright perverse. Basically, the Appellate Court is required to be satisfied that the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a conviction despite which the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice.2. It is, in the light of these principles that we have con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›