2 Important Supreme Court Judgments Pronounced Today [Monday, December 10, 2018]

1. Chairman, Board of Trustee, Sri Ram Mandir Jagtial Karimnagar District, A.P v. S. Rajyalaxmi (Dead) & Ors.

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966 (A.P.) - Section 93(2) -

Burden to prove ownership over the suit property is on the plaintiff.

In the present case, the respondents-­plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden of proof by being unable to furnish necessary documentary and oral evidence to prove their claim. But, the High Court without appreciating the aforesaid evidences and claims made by the appellant (defendant no.4), decreed the suit in favour of the respondents-­plaintiffs by solely relying on the entry made in the book of endowments department stating the boundaries of the temple. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court is untenable in law as it is based on erroneous appreciation of evidence.

View Judgment : http://bit.ly/CA7843of2009
Case Number : C.A. No. 7843 of 2009 10-12-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : D. Mahesh Babu
Respondent's Advocate : Lawyer S Knit & Co
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana





2. State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary v. Wasif Haider

Criminal Trial - Accused cannot be expected to relinquish his innocence at the hands of an inefficacious prosecution, which is ridden with investigative deficiencies - Benefit of doubt arising out of such inefficient investigation, must be bestowed upon the accused. 

In the present case, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid investigative lapses has fortified the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused-respondents. In such cases, the benefit of doubt arising out of a faulty investigation accrues in favor of the accused. Although we acknowledge the gravity of the offence alleged against the accused-respondents and the unfortunate fact of a senior official losing his life in furtherance of his duty we cannot overlook the fact that the lapses in the investigation have disabled the prosecution to prove the culpability of the accused. The accused cannot be expected to relinquish his innocence at the hands of an inefficacious prosecution, which is ridden with investigative deficiencies. The benefit of doubt arising out of such inefficient investigation, must be bestowed upon the accused.

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 148 - Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 - Section 7 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25 and 27 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 4 and 15.

An appeal against acquittal, the appellate court would interfere only where there exists perversity of fact and law.

A suspicion, however grave it may be cannot take place of proof, i.e., there is a long distance between “may be” and “must be”, which must be traversed by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

View Judgment : http://bit.ly/CrlA1702of2014
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1702 - 1706 of 2014 10-12-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Garvesh Kabra
Respondent's Advocate : T. Mahipal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post