#acquittal appeal

Gujarat HC upholds acquittal: birth certificate without source verification cannot prove minority, making POCSO presumption inapplicable. Victim's conduct - no outcry, voluntary travel, non-disclosure - negated kidnapping and rape under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. Proven age is a jurisdictional prerequisite for POCSO; voluntary accompaniment by a minor defeats kidnapping charges.

The Gujarat High Court affirmed the acquittal of the accused after medical evidence revealed no axe-blow injury, contradicting ocular testimony of fatal head trauma. It held that in acquittal appeals under Section 378 CrPC, the double presumption of innocence requires acquittal to be upheld unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, benefiting accused facing conflicting eyewitness and medical evidence.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act, holding that a notice must specify the exact cheque amount to be valid. It further clarified that any alteration in the cheque initialled by the accused does not void the instrument, refining the evidentiary requirements for dishonoured cheque cases.

Himachal Pradesh High Court acquits accused in a rash driving case, ruling that a mechanical defect shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution to demonstrate the driver's failure to maintain the vehicle. The judgment clarifies that negligence cannot be presumed without evidence of poor upkeep, impacting road accident litigation under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 338.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that victims may file appeals against acquittals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Court, even if the original appeal was filed incorrectly under Section 378. The court granted liberty to refile within four months, suspending limitation objections if the initial filing was timely or delay was previously condoned - empowering victims with a clear, court-sanctioned second chance to challenge unjust acquittals.

Rajasthan High Court rules that circumstantial evidence, including pre-trap proceedings and demand corroboration, is sufficient to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even if key witnesses turn hostile. The judgment reinforces that direct evidence is not mandatory for conviction in corruption cases, impacting anti-corruption prosecutions nationwide.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court acquits a Patwari, ruling that while Section 7 of the PC Act demands proof of bribe demand, Section 13(1)(d) criminalizes gratification obtained through corrupt means even without explicit demand - but recovery of money after official duty is completed, without evidence of collusion or intent, cannot sustain conviction. This sets a critical precedent for prosecution strategies in corruption cases involving post-facto sting operations.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court overturned a conviction after police failed to record written reasons for searching a vehicle under Section 165 CrPC and depended on a witness with a pattern of appearing in police cases. This ruling reinforces that procedural compliance is non-negotiable in search operations and that reliance on habitual police witnesses undermines evidentiary credibility in excise and criminal prosecutions.

Allahabad High Court sets a high bar for rape convictions, requiring victim testimony to be unimpeachable and free from material contradictions. The ruling underscores that even in heinous crimes, evidentiary standards cannot be diluted, impacting prosecution strategies in sexual assault cases.

Madhya Pradesh High Court affirms that victims in Section 420 IPC cases, not just NI Act offences, can appeal acquittals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without requiring special leave under Section 378(4). This ruling broadens victim rights in criminal appeals, ensuring complainants in cheating cases have independent appellate recourse.

Bombay HC reaffirms that extra-judicial confessions made to a Police Patil are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also mandates scientific proof of victim identity, setting aside conviction where identity relied on circumstantial evidence alone.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a victim in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 NI Act can appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave. The decision reinforces the Supreme Court’s holding in Celestium Financial, clarifying that victims need not be complainants to exercise this right, streamlining access to justice in financial disputes.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that merely driving at high speed does not constitute criminal negligence under IPC Sections 279, 337, or 338 unless supported by objective evidence or expert testimony. This clarifies the evidentiary threshold for prosecuting rash driving cases, protecting drivers from speculative charges based solely on speed estimates. The decision impacts police investigations, prosecution strategies, and trial courts handling road accident cases nationwide.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that identifying accused persons at trial without a prior test identification parade renders identification unreliable, particularly when witnesses are strangers to the accused and the incident occurred in darkness. This sets a critical precedent for forest offence prosecutions where eyewitness accounts are often the sole evidence, reinforcing the need for procedural safeguards under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act.

Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that failure to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act-requiring a search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer-fatally undermines the prosecution's case, even if the accused consents to a police search. The judgment reinforces that procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act are mandatory, not directory, and their breach warrants acquittal.