Summary
The High Court’s cursory dismissal of a victim’s appeal against acquittal did not adequately exercise its appellate jurisdiction. It referred to some witnesses without properly considering the prosecution evidence as a whole and apparently did not call for the trial record. The Supreme Court remanded without expressing a view on guilt or acquittal.
Issues
- Whether the High Court adequately discharged its duty in deciding the acquittal appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 385(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court should have called for the trial record when hearing the appeal. (¶ 19–20)
Held
- Although interference with acquittal requires caution and compelling reasons, appellate power to review evidence remains extensive. A cryptic conclusion that the trial view was plausible did not substitute for proper examination. (¶ 18–22)
- The Supreme Court declined to undertake the first appellate appreciation itself; all merits submissions remained open before the High Court. (¶ 23–27)
Result
Appeal allowed in part; High Court order set aside and acquittal appeal restored for expeditious fresh decision.