Back
BIREN VAISHNAV, MAULIK J. SHELAT
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Dilip Karsanbhai Rathod – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT)
1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-1), Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Session Case No.01 of 2002. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The short facts of the prosecution case read as under:-
2.1 The prosecution alleges that on 31.12.2000/2001 at around 2:15, the accused lured and kidnapped the minor victim creating an impression to marry and had taken her away to Kasandra Village at place of one Manubhai and raped her, resulting into an offence punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC.
2.2 Thereafter, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 02.01.2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 of 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared panchnamas in
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, including establishing the victim's age and non-consent; failure to do so justifies acquittal.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to significant contradictions in the victim's testimony and absence of supporting medical evidence, reinforcing the presumption of innocenc....
Point of law: In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power....
Point of Law : In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence that is important, as there is no requirement in law of evid....
In rape cases, a victim's credible testimony can obviate the need for corroboration; if deemed incredible, corroboration becomes essential for a conviction.
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless there is compelling evidence to disturb the presumption of innocence established by the trial court.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of corroborating evidence can weaken the case.
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
