IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.H. Vora, Rajendra M. Sareen, JJ.
Dajabhai – Appellant
Versus
Mancharam Dwarkadas Sadhu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2022
Indian Penal Code, - Section 302, 114 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378, 209, 161, 167 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(5)- Gujarat Police Act, 1951- Section 135 - Offence punishable - Punishment for murder - Abettor present when offence is committed - Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it - Examination of witnesses by police - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hour -Whether there was blood stain on clothes of accused have not supported case of prosecution - Even of recovery prepared by investigating officer, there is no mention about weapon and blood stain on weapon and clothes of accused –Held, Court in case of Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 444 and while dealing with judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by learned trial Court is found to be perverse, acquittal cannot be upset -It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if view taken by learned trial Court is possible on evidence, High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in matter in belief that if it had been trial Court, it might have taken a different view - Court would not be justified in setting aside trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshaling the entire evidence on record that judgment of trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law - Accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajendra M. Sareen, J.
1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-original complainant under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 21/01/2019 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Anjar, Kachchh in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 28 of 2015 (Old Special (Atrocity) Case No. 4 of 2012 acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the offence punishable under sections 302 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity” Act) and under section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under:
3. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was started and during the course of the investigation, offence under section 114 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act came to be added and after through investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the respondent Nos.1 and 2-accused persons, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rapar. As the offence committed by the accused persons was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judge was pleased to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was transferred and placed for trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been numbered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 4 of 2012 which was subsequently renumbered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 28 of 2015. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act and under section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the Charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, laid evidence, oral as well as documentary. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent Nos.1 and 2-original accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charges
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the trial court's decision is perverse or lacks evidentiary support, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The judgment underscores the principle of presumption of innocence, the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt, and the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquittal without ....
The judgment reinforces the principle of presumption of innocence and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt, emphasizing the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquitta....
The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the importance of reliable evidence for a conviction.
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the prosecution's evidence conclusively proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, affirming the presumption of innocence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.