Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., BIBHU DATTA GURU
State of Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Phabyani S/o Shri Dalit Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
1. As during pendency of present Acquittal Appeal filed by the State, accused/respondent Nos. 4 Bhuneshwar Sahu No. 5 Jiyant Walyani and No.6 Phaiju Mohammad @ Phiju have been died and their names have already been deleted and as such, the present appeal is being considered only for accused/ respondent Nos.1 Deepak Phabyani, No.2 Upendra Surojiya, No.3 Vijay Kumar Soni, No.7 Manoj Sahu and No.8 Liyakat @ Likku.
2. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the State/appellant challenging the legality, validity and propriety of judgment dated 10.04.2003 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.69/1998, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, R/w Section 302, 404 R/w Section 34 and 201 of IPC giving benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The prosecution story is not described in the charge sheet in the required detail. Based on the police statements and other documents filed with the case, the prosecution story, as det
The presumption of innocence remains paramount; an acquittal will only be overturned if there is compelling evidence that the trial court's decision was perverse or unreasonable.
The prosecution must prove common intention for liability under Section 34 IPC; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings in acquittal appeals unless they are proven to be perverse or arbitrary.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.
In criminal appeals, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, especially where direct evidence is absent, reinforcing a presumptio....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals are reviewed under strict guidelines favoring the presumption of innocence.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
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
