Back
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
DAJABHAI KESHABHAI MAKWANA THAKORE – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat under Section 378 (1)(3)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhanghdhra (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2007, whereby, the trial Court has acquitted the original accused-respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 337, 504 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short), Section 3(1)(10) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Atrocity Act” for short) and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, now Gujarat Police Act.
2. The appeal was filed against 11 accused persons, out of them during pendency of the appeal, accused No. 4 was died and therefore, present Appeal was abated qua accused No. 4 vide order dated 25.4.2023. Further, in view of amendment in Section 15A(5) of the Atrocities Act, notice was issued to original complainant , however the notice issued by this Court was returned with an endorsement that the original complainant
The acquittal under the Atrocities Act requires clear intent to humiliate based on caste, and the appellate court can only overturn if there is illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment.
The prosecution must prove intentional insult or intimidation based on caste to establish an offence under the Atrocity Act; mere membership of a Scheduled Caste is insufficient for conviction.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, confirming the double presumption of innocence for the accused.
An acquittal by the trial Court carries a double presumption of innocence, and the appellate court should not disturb it unless there is a manifest error or perverse conclusion.
The acquittal was upheld due to the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for credible evidence.
In acquittal appeals, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere contradictions in witness testimonies do not suffice to overturn a trial court's acquittal.
The judgment emphasized the need for substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with an order of acquittal, the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the importance of re-....
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless there is clear error in the trial court's evaluation of evidence, respecting the presumption of innocence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Cou....
An appellate court must respect acquittals and only intervene if the trial court's judgment is legally erroneous or misinterprets evidence, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
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
