Double presumption of innocence

After acquittal, accused attains double presumption of innocence.

Acquittal could be reversed only when it was found blatantly perverse, resting upon firings of impossibility and resulted into miscarriage of justice

Acquittal could not be set aside merely on the possibility of a contrary view.

Every accused, after acquittal, earns a double presumption of innocence, the rebuttal of which heavy onus lies on the prosecution.

Order of acquittal carries with it a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and in such cases, the Court is required to act slowly before interfering with such order of acquittal, unless the grounds for acquittal are perverse, wholly illogical or unreasonable.

Acquittal order cannot be interfered with until and unless the non-reading of evidence or any other perversity or miscarriage of justice is pointed out.

Accused person, as a matter of right, is presumed to be innocent before trial unless the charge is proved against him/her

Acquittal at trial gives rise to double presumption of innocence for an accused

An appellate Court is needed to be cautious while considering the evidence and should avoid reversal of an acquittal, unless it finds that the acquittal is perverse, conjectural, arbitrary, jurisdictionally defective and prompted by mis-reading or non-reading of evidence

Even if a contrary view is formed on re-appraisal of evidence, it should not be used to disturb an acquittal, provided convincing evidence is available on the record to reverse acquittal.

Acquittal judgment or order normally does not call for any interference, unless it is found arbitrary, capricious, fanciful, artificial, shocking, ridiculous and there is non-reading and gross mis-reading of the evidence, resulting into miscarriage of justice.

An appellate Court needs to be cautious while considering the evidence and should avoid reversal of an acquittal, unless it finds that the acquittal was perverse, conjectural, arbitrary, jurisdictionally defective and was prompted by mis-reading or non-reading of evidence

Even if a contrary view is formed on re-appraisal of evidence, it should not be used to disturb an acquittal, provided convincing evidence is available on the record to reverse acquittal.

Once an acquittal is recorded in favour of the accused facing criminal charge, he enjoys double presumption of innocence, therefore, the Court competent to interfere in the acquittal order should be slow in converting the same into conviction, unless and until the said order is patently illegal, shocking, based on misreading and non-reading of the record or perverse.

After acquittal, accused person attains double presumption of innocence and Courts are always slow to disturb the same.

When a Court of competent jurisdiction acquits an accused person, double presumption of innocence is attached to his case.

When a Court of competent jurisdiction acquits the accused, double presumption of innocence is attached to his case.

Courts are generally reluctant to overturn an acquittal unless it is demonstrated to be perverse, rendered in gross violation of the law, or vitiated by serious errors arising from a grave misreading or complete omission of evidence.

Interference by appellate Court in acquittal order is comparatively narrow and limited because in case of acquittal the presumption of innocence is significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that an accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty

In other words, the presumption of innocence is doubled

Courts are normally reluctant to interfere in such an acquittal order, unless it is shown to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law, suffering from the errors of grave misreading or non-reading of the evidence.

Once acquittal is recorded, double presumption of innocence is created which cannot be interfered unless the appellate Court reaches the conclusion that findings are speculative and artificial or arbitrary

Possibility of formulation of another opinion by itself will not be sufficient to make interference.

Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is most narrow and limited, because in an acquittal the presumption of innocence is significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence, that an accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty; in other words, the presumption of innocence is doubled

Courts are very slow in interfering with such an acquittal judgment, unless it is shown to be perverse, is passed in gross violation of law, or suffers from the errors of grave misreading or non-reading of the evidence.

In an appeal against acquittal, the Court would not ordinarily interfere and would instead give due weight and consideration to the findings of the Court acquitting the accused which carries a double presumption of innocence, i.e. the initial presumption that an accused is innocent until found guilty, which is then fortified by a second presumption once the Court below confirms the assumption of innocence, which cannot be displaced lightly.

After acquittal, the accused earns a double presumption of innocence.

Appellate Court needs to be cautious while considering the evidence and should avoid reversal of an acquittal, unless it is found that the acquittal is perverse, conjectural, arbitrary, jurisdictionally defective and prompted by mis-reading or non-reading of evidence.

Once an acquittal is recorded in favour of accused facing criminal charge he enjoys double presumption of innocence, therefore, the Courts competent to interfere in the acquittal order should be slow in converting the same into conviction, unless and until said order is patently illegal, shocking, based on misreading and non-reading of the record or is perverse.

Once an acquittal is recorded in favour of accused facing criminal charge, he will enjoy double presumption of innocence

Therefore, the Court competent to interfere in the acquittal order should be slow in converting the same into conviction, unless and until the said order is patently illegal, shocking, based on misreading and non-reading of the record or perverse.

Once an acquittal was recorded in favour of accused facing criminal charge he enjoyed twice the presumption of innocence, and such acquittal right could not be undone by ignoring the law of land applicable on the subject.

Thus, an acquittal judgment or order normally does not call for any interference and the same can be interfered with only in exceptional cases.

Double presumption of innocence existed in favour of an accused, who had secured acquittal; one, that every accused shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty, and the other, that the competent Court of law had adjudged him 'not guilty'.

Appeal against acquittal had distinctive features and the approach to deal with the appeal against conviction was distinguishable from the appeal against the acquittal because presumption of double innocence was attached in the later case

Order of acquittal could only be interfered with, if it was found on its face to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature or based on misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or was artificial, arbitrary and led to gross miscarriage of justice

Mere disregard of technicalities in a criminal trial without resulting injustice was not enough for interference.

Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is narrow and limited because in an acquittal the presumption of innocence is significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that an accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty

In an acquittal the presumption of innocence is doubled.

Double presumption of innocence is attached to the order of acquittal and interference is unwarranted unless the acquittal is arbitrary, fanciful and against the record.

Accused after acquittal earned a double presumption of innocenceand to rebut the same heavy onus laid on the prosecution.

In case of acquittal the accused was presumed to be innocent and if after trial, accused was acquitted, he earned double presumption of innocence

Acquittal judgment or order normally did not call for any interference unless it was found arbitrary, capricious, fanciful, artificial, shocking and ridiculous

Interference was to be made only when there was none reading and gross misreading of the evidence, resulting the miscarriage of justice and on perusal of the evidence no other decision could be given except that the accused was guilty.

Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal was narrow and limited because in an acquittal the presumption of the innocence was significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence as the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.

Appeal against conviction is distinguishable from the appeal against the acquittal because presumption of double innocence is attached in the latter case

Order of acquittal could only be interfered with, if it is found on its face to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature or based on misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or is artificial, arbitrary and leads to gross miscarriage of justice.

Acquittal judgment or order did not call for any interference unless it was found arbitrary, capricious, fanciful, artificial, shocking and ridiculous

While evaluating the evidence, difference was to be maintained in an appeal from conviction and an acquittal appeal and in the latter case the interference was to be made only when there was non-reading and gross misreading of the evidence, resulting the miscarriage of justice and on perusal of the evidence no other decision could be given except that the accused was guilty.

Appeal against conviction was distinguishable from the appeal against the acquittal because presumption of double innocence was attached in the later case

Order of acquittal could only be interfered with, if it was found on its face to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature or based on misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or was artificial and led to gross miscarriage of justice

Mere technicalities in a criminal trial without resulting injustice was not enough for interference.

Accused who had been acquitted could claim double presumption of innocence, one at the pre-trial stage and the other on the basis of judgment of acquittal in his favour from the court of competent jurisdiction.

Accused who had been acquitted in a crime could claim double presumption of innocence, one at the pre-trial stage and the other he might have earned on the basis of judgment of acquittal in his favour from the court of competent jurisdiction.

Appeal against conviction was distinguishable from the appeal against the acquittal because presumption of double innocence was attached in the later case

Order of acquittal could only be interfered with, if it was found on its face to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature or based on misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or was artificial and led to gross miscarriage of justice

Mere disregard of technicalities in a criminal trial without resulting injustice was not enough for interference.

Court sitting in appeal against acquittal, always remained slow in reversing the judgment of acquittal, unless it was found to be arbitrary, fanciful and capricious on the face of it or was the result of bare misreading or non-reading of any material evidence.

Once accused was acquitted by the competent court of law after facing the agonies of protracted trial, he would earn double presumption of innocence which could not be disturbed by the appellate court lightly.

Acquittal order could be reversed only when found blatantly perverse, resting upon fringes of impossibility and resulting into miscarriage of justice

Acquittal order could not be set aside merely on the possibility of a contra view.

Acquittal order could be reversed only when found blatantly perverse, resting upon fringes of impossibility and resulting into miscarriage of justice

Same could not be set aside merely on the possibility of a contra view.

While dealing with an appeal against acquittal the court was also to see as to what illegality the Trial Court had committed while acquitting the accused and the judgment impugned was arbitrary, mechanical and perverse.

Every person was innocent unless proven guilty and upon acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction, such presumption is doubled.

Acquittal judgment or order normally did not call for any interference unless it was found arbitrary, capricious, fanciful, artificial, shocking and ridiculous and while evaluating the evidence, difference was to be maintained in an appeal from conviction and an acquittal appeal

In the letter case, the interference was to be made only when there was non-reading and gross misreading of the evidence, resulting the miscarriage of justice and on perusal of the evidence no other decision could be given except that the accused was guilty.

Appeal against acquittal is distinct from an appeal against conviction, as the presumption of double innocence is attached to the former

Acquittal can only be interfered with when it is found to be capricious, arbitrary and perverse.

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

In an acquittal the presumption of the innocence was significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisdiction as the accused would be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.

When accused was acquitted from the charge by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then double presumption of innocence was attached with the judgment of acquittal

Such judgment cannot be interfered with unless it is proved to be arbitrary, shocking, capricious, fanciful and against the principles of criminal administration of justice.

Acquittal judgment or order normally did not call for any interference unless it was found arbitrary, capricious, fanciful, artificial, shocking and ridiculous

While evaluating the evidence, difference was to be maintained in an appeal from conviction and an acquittal appeal and in the latter case interference was to be made only when there was non-reading and gross misreading of the evidence, resulting the miscarriage of justice and on perusal of the evidence no other decision could be given except that the accused was guilty.

After acquittal of the accused by the court of competent jurisdiction presumption of double innocence was attached to accused, which normally did not call for interference, unless the acquittal judgment or order was found arbitrary, capricious, fanciful and against the record.

Court would interfere only if the impugned judgment was arbitrary, capricious or against the record.