V. RAJARAM versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/SCB

V. RAJARAM versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/SCB

There was no evidence that the appellant intentionally disobeyed directions of law or superiors (PW-30 and PW-29), nor any lack of diligence or intentional omission to apprehend the accused. The trial court's acquittal was based on a plausible view of the evidence, and the High Court ought not to have substituted...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant Accused No.17: V. Rajaram; Respondent: State represented by Inspector of Police CBI/SCB
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction—supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.
Legal Topics
Public Servant Offences, Disobedience of Law, Intentional Omission to Apprehend Accused, Standards for Reversing Acquittals
Criminal Law Public Servant Offences Disobedience of Law Intentional Omission to Apprehend Accused Standards for Reversing Acquittals

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V. Rajaram

Appellant Accused No.17

State represented by Inspector of Police CBI/SCB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction—supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, as Deputy Superintendent of Police, disobeyed directions of law or omitted to apprehend accused intentionally under Sections 217 and 221 IPC.
  2. 2 Whether High Court was justified in reversing trial court's acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the appellant intentionally disobeyed directions of law or superiors (PW-30 and PW-29), nor any lack of diligence or intentional omission to apprehend the accused. The trial court's acquittal was based on a plausible view of the evidence, and the High Court ought not to have substituted its views. Conviction under Sections 217 and 221 IPC is not sustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 21.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 convicting appellant under ss.217 and 221 IPC are set aside.
  • Appellant acquitted of the charges.