DV ACT 2005   |   IPC 498A   |   Maintenance






Number of Documents : 1

INSTALL ANDROID APP



1.

RAPE
SC of INDIA

on

2016-10-04
Crl App No 1767 of 2011J.Amitava RoyRaja vs State of KarnatkaIPC 376, 392, 34

Sex worker cant cry rape IF denied money : Vis-a-vis the scope of interference with a judgment of acquittal, this Court in Sunil Kumar Shabukumar Gupta (Dr.) (supra) echoed the hallowed proposition that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not ordinarily interfere therewith though its view may appear to be the more probable one. While emphasizing that the trial court has the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses and is thus the best judge of their credibility, it was held that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved and that his presumption of innocence gets reinforced with his acquittal by the trial court's verdict. It was reiterated that only in exceptionable cases and under compelling circumstances, where the judgement of acquittal is found to be perverse i.e. if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant materials or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material and are against the weight of evidence or are so outrageously in defiance of logic so as to suffer from the vice of irrationality, that interference by the appellate court would be called for.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW