Back
ILESH J. VORA, S. V. PINTO
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
RANCHHOD @ RAMESHBHAI JIVRAJBHAI DHOLA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. Here is the appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case nos. 154 of 2004 and 245 of 2005, acquitting the respondents-original accused nos. 1 to 6, 8, 10 to 13 and 14 from the offences under Sections 394/397 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (old) (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 25(1B) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 (‘B.P. Act’ in short), the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old) (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short).
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file this appeal are that, respondents accused were tried for the offence of robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. The original accused nos. 7 and 9 hit witness Bharatbhai PW-1 on his head with iron rod and witness Pravanbhai PW-3 with country-made pistol caused grievous hurt and took away the bag filled with the diamonds, whereby they tried to cause death of the witnesses and committed an offence of robbery wi
The essence of criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act, which must be established by sufficient evidence; mere allegations are inadequate for conviction.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's discretion in sentencing, affirming that the imposed 7-year sentence was adequate given the circumstances of the robbery and the use of a firearm.
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.
The judgment emphasizes the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the burden of proof resting on the prosecution, and the requirement for material evidence of sterling quality to prove th....
Acquittal of accused upheld as prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling evidence to overturn acquittals.
The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the appellate court's scope of interference in acquittal appeals is limited.
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....
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
