The impugned judgment is set aside. When interpreting a statute, courts will presume that Parliament did not intend to permit an appeal from an acquittal, unless such an intention was made unambiguously clear. However, on a careful scrutiny of Ex. Duty of appellate court: 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. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup 1 , highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. An appeal from an order of acquittal must be filed within the period of limitation prescribed by Article 114 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the circumstances, in our view, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court on the basis of evidence on record was not a possible view.
If the dying declaration is recorded not directly from the actual words of the maker but as dictated by 11 Page 11 somebody else, in our opinion, this by itself creates a lot of suspicion about credibility of such statement and the prosecution has to clear the same to the satisfaction of the court. Hospital where deceased Pradeep was taken immediately after the incident. On November 2, the government had agreed in a deal with the protesters to follow due process to impose a travel ban on Bibi, and not to challenge the review appeal in the Supreme Court. Acquittal of accused persons giving them benefit of doubts proper: Where in a murder case prosecution case was that accused persons in company of main accused had come to the place of incident armed with sticks and assaulted deceased. Read more: Asia Bibi case highlights Pakistan's harsh blasphemy laws A dispute over water In 2009, Asia Bibi was accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad while she was working in a field in Punjab's Sheikhupura district.
An acquittal, while conclusive as to the criminal law, does not necessarily bar private actions in or on some other grounds as a result of the facts alleged in the charge. It was known for acquitted persons to die in jail for lack of jailer's fees. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief in its order, indicative of an application of its mind; all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Pakistan's Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal against its decision last year to acquit Asia Bibi, who had spent eight years on death row on blasphemy charges.
The bench said the special leave petition has been pending in this court for the past five years. In modern England and Wales, and in all countries that substantially follow English criminal procedure, an acquittal normally results in the immediate liberation of the defendant from custody, assuming no other charges against the defendant remain to be tried. Held, that High Court could not be found fault with for its well merited interference. May be a good attorney can explain this. However, until 1774 a defendant acquitted by an English or Welsh court would be remanded to until he had paid the jailer for the costs of his confinement.
Activists say they are often implemented in cases that have little to do with blasphemy and are used to settle petty disputes and personal vendettas. One can argue that this is too low for the crime he committed but there is no legal venue to redress that unless the plaintiff files a new case. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. This social stigma will remain as such unless the mental attitude of our male dominant chauvinists is not changed through mass awareness program, by those who have suffered such violence. The restrictions on the preferring of an appeal against acquittal to the High Court are intended to safeguard the interests of the accused person and to save him from personal vindictiveness. The State of Karnataka preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court against the judgment of the Fast Track Court-I, Mandya acquitting the accused. Sub-sections 1 and 3 of Section 378.
Lodha and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh issued the following guidelines to the appellate courts in dealing with appeals against acquittal: i There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, ii The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, iii Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. Powers of High Court for hearing of appeal against acquittal: Where order of acquittal had been passed by the trial Judge. The general principles underlying the double jeopardy rule include: the prevention of the State, with its considerable resources, from repeatedly attempting to convict an individual; the according of finality to defendants, witnesses and others involved in the original criminal proceedings; and the safeguarding of the integrity of jury verdicts. The Draft Ordinance is at Appendix-I. There could be no interference with the order of acquittal.
Solution for such serious offences of misappropriation of funds of Co-operative Society was that prosecutors in trial Court should be vigilant to ensure specific evidence establishing the guilt of the accused who was brought on record. Power of High Court in appeal against acquittal: Where the acquittal by trial Court was found on the basis of unwarranted assumptions and manifestly erroneous appreciation of evidence by ignoring valuable and credible evidence resulting in serious and substantial miscarriage of justice. We would propose that the same right be extended under Section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975 to private complainant as well by positive legislation. The Law Commission of England and Wales considered the rule against double jeopardy and prosecution appeals following a reference in 2001. Third judge Justice Deepak Gupta dissented with the majority on sole issue as to whether victims can file theappeal without the prior leave or sanction from the appellate courts and took note of the rights of the accused in this regard.
Barrister Hassaan Niazi alleged that Siddiqui and her legal team had faced pressure at different stages, including at the trial court, the sessions court and the high court. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. And today's decision has proven that if you misuse your power, you will reap what you sow as has happened today. High Court was not justified in refusing to grant leave to appeal, because effect of admission of accused in the background of testimony of official witnesses needed adjudication in appeal. The High Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of dying declaration alone, as in its view the dying declaration is credible and genuine. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. The Limitation Act, 1963 in Art.
Impugned order was set aside and leave was granted to State to file appeal. The Quranic verse is as follows Nor take life which Allah has made sacred except for just cause. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. Both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. A judicial magistrate on July 29, 2017 had ; however, the following year. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.