AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 178 wordsRohit Arya, J
Heard on I.A. No.23070 of 2023, which is an application under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of State seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondents dated 30.09.2023 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) in Session Case No.36/2020.
We have heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State.
We have also perused the impugned judgment.
The conclusion of acquittal drawn in favour of respondents particularly, in view of paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 22, 44 and 52 of the impugned judgment, appears to be reasonable and plausible based on proper appreciation of evidence. The judgment and the reasoning thereof, are not manifestly illegal or perverse to make out a case of miscarriage of justice. The judgment is impregnable as neither there is any illegality nor irregularity in the finding so recorded. Therefore, no compelling or substantial reasons for interference by this appellate Court and for grant of leave to appeal, are made out.
Accordingly, I.A. No.23070 of 2023 is rejected.
Consequently, present appeal stands dismissed.