Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
Rajesh Rai K
State of Karnataka Represented by The Special Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Shantabai Kom Omanna Gavalkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Rai K, J.
The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.09.2017 in Special Case No.1/2011 passed by the District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Uttara Kannada, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Judge’), whereby the learned Special Judge acquitted accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’ for short).
2. The abridged facts of the case of prosecution is that, on 23.11.2010, at about 10:00 a.m., when the complainant (PW5) along with his family members were cutting paddy crop in their land bearing Sy.No.54 situated at Kesarolli village of Haliyal Taluk, the accused persons trespassed the said land by forming an unlawful assembly and abused the complainant and his family members by mentioning their caste 
and threatened them to leave the place or else they will do away their life. As such, PW5 lodged a complaint before the Haliyal Police on the same day i.e. on 23.11.2010 as per Ex.P6. On the strength of Ex.P6, PW2-th
In acquittal appeals, if the trial court’s assessment of evidence is plausible, the appellate court will not interfere, emphasizing the burden of proof on the prosecution.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless compelling reasons exist to interfere with an acquittal.
In acquittal appeals, evidence must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; presumption of innocence remains unless proven otherwise.
The judgment emphasized the need for substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with an order of acquittal, the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the importance of re-....
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the trial court's findings unless they are found to be perverse, as presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal.
In criminal appeals against acquittals, the presumption of innocence prevails and the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants upholding the acquittal.
The presumption of innocence reinforces acquittal; appellate courts must respect trial court findings unless evidence is unreasonable.
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, confirming that the incident did not constitute an offence under the Atr....
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for conviction and the presumption of innocence for the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
