BIREN VAISHNAV, MAULIK J. SHELAT
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Kaluram Khimji Modiya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar, in Sessions Case No.165 of 2000 on 31.05.2003. By the aforesaid judgement, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused of the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 201, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.1997 at around 16:30, on Vijaynagar-Rani road, the deceased son of the complainant i.e. Maganbhai Ravjibhai and her other son named Babubhai Ravjibhai came home in a jeep. They stepped down from the jeep. At that time, the above named accused along with Dinesh Ratnaji Modia, Prabhu Khimji Modia and Shantilal Punaji Modia, all residents of Rani, Khervada, having doubt on the deceased that he had illicit relationship with one Kantaben, had beaten up the deceased, more particularly on his private part with a wooden log and strangulated him and committed the offence punishable as mentioned herein above. It is also all
Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394
Chandrappa and ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is perverse or unsupported by the evidence.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that two reasonable views should not disturb the trial ....
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for clear evidence of guilt in criminal cases.
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the trial court's decision is perverse or lacks evidentiary support, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
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 appellate court must uphold a trial court's acquittal unless it is proven to be perverse or unsustainable, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence for conviction and the presumption of innocence in criminal cases.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that acquittals should not be disturbed unless there is clear evidence of guilt, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for clear proof of guilt.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence remains unless clear evidence of guilt is established, and it should not interfere with the trial court's findi....
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.