Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
G.BASAVARAJA
State Of Karnataka, Represented By The Police Inspector, Honnavar Police Station, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, Through The Addl. State Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Badruddin Mohammad Sab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Uttara Kannda, Karwar (for short ‘trial Court’) in Special Case No. 31/2011 dated 13.11.2017.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. Brief relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under:
It is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant and CW4 are belonging to Mukri community which is classified under SC & ST category. Accused is a Muslim. That on 31.08.2011 at about 9.00 p.m. when the complainant was near Masjid cross in between Karki and Naduchitte village, accused came there and abused CW1 by saying 
and assaulted him with hands over his body and hands and caused simple injuries. When CW4 came for rescue the accused also abused her in filthy language and insulted her. Thus the accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 323 and 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)((X)(XI) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. After filing charge sheet, the trial Court has taken cognizance and a case was registered in Spl.Case No.31/2011. In response to the summons, accused appeared before the tria
The judgment affirms that the prosecution must establish all elements of charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and insufficient evidence led to an acquittal.
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.
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.
In acquittal appeals, evidence must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; presumption of innocence remains unless proven otherwise.
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.
In acquittal appeals, presumption of innocence is reinforced, and the appellate court should only interfere with the acquittal if the trial court's ruling is perverse or unreasonable based on the pre....
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is unreasonable or perverse.
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and should not interfere with an acquittal unless there is manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment.
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.
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.
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
