RAJENDRA M. SAREEN
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Gohil Mahendrasinh Ajitsinh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat and Criminal Appeal No.875 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant – original complainant challenging the judgement and order dated 14/12/2012 passed by the learned Special Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Special (Atrocity) Case No.44 of 2009 whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused / respondent Nos.1 to 8 from the offence punishable under sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, under section 135 of Bombay Police Act and under section 3(1)(10) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act.
2. Brief case of the prosecution is that the complainant has alleged in the complaint that Accused No. 1 to 4 on 13/06/2009 were making a thorn boundary in the back side of the complainant house and complainant had asked them not to make that thorn boundary due to which Accused persons got angry and had ran with Dhariyu, Lakdi, Khuhadi to beat Complainant and had abused on caste and threatened him and complainant had gone inside the house than accused No. 5 to 8 had come and threatened the complainant and therefore on 29/06/2009 complaint is given by complainant against
Arulvelu and another versus State
Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206
Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9 SCC 731
Chaman Lal v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Chandrappa and ors. vs. State of Karnataka
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415
Dhanapal v. State (2009) 10 SCC 401
Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC 450
Kali Ram V. State of Himachal Pradesh
Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699
Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98
Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535
Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761
Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755
State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368
State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271
The judgment emphasizes the need for compelling circumstances and the perversity of the lower court's decision to interfere with an order of acquittal, citing specific cases to support the legal prin....
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the need for compelling circumstances to interfere with an order of acquittal.
Where trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of evidence which is but barely possible, it is obvious duty of Hi....
Point of law : Where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, i....
The presumption of innocence, the reluctance to interfere with acquittal, and the need for compelling circumstances to justify interference with an order of acquittal.
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.