cross
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE
Sessions Case No. 48/95
State by Kadugodi Police --- Complainant
-vs-
Chinnaswamy & Others --- Accused
Index of Authorities
I. Presumption of Innocence and Standard of Proof
1. Padam Singh v. State of U.P., 2000 (1) SCC 621, at page 625
It is the duty of an appellate court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence.
2. Harchand Singh & Anr v. State Of Haryana, 1974 SCR (1) 583, at page 588
If in a case, the prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradicts and strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable , the result would necessarily be that the court would be, left with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such a situation
3. Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1955 SC 217 at ¶ 11
Now it may be possible to take views of this statement but there are two important factors in every criminal trial that weigh heavily in favour of an accused person : one is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt and the other, an off-shoot of the same principle, that when an accused person offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct, then, even though he cannot prove his assertions, they should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that they are false.
4. Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 SCR (2) 723, at page 730
The overall view of the evidence taken by the learned sessions judge is reasonable and plausible, while it is true that some of the reasons given if taken individually do not appear to be substantial. Even
RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE
Sessions Case No. 48/95
State by Kadugodi Police --- Complainant
-vs-
Chinnaswamy & Others --- Accused
Index of Authorities
I. Presumption of Innocence and Standard of Proof
1. Padam Singh v. State of U.P., 2000 (1) SCC 621, at page 625
It is the duty of an appellate court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence.
2. Harchand Singh & Anr v. State Of Haryana, 1974 SCR (1) 583, at page 588
If in a case, the prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradicts and strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable , the result would necessarily be that the court would be, left with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such a situation
3. Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1955 SC 217 at ¶ 11
Now it may be possible to take views of this statement but there are two important factors in every criminal trial that weigh heavily in favour of an accused person : one is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt and the other, an off-shoot of the same principle, that when an accused person offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct, then, even though he cannot prove his assertions, they should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that they are false.
4. Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 SCR (2) 723, at page 730
The overall view of the evidence taken by the learned sessions judge is reasonable and plausible, while it is true that some of the reasons given if taken individually do not appear to be substantial. Even