Back
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
SARANGAJI VAGHAJI SOLANKI RAJPUT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat (original complainant) 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 29/08/2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Deesa-Camp court Deodar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Special Case No. 12 of 2007, whereby, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the original accused respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) read with the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1981 (for short “the Atrocities Act”).
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that, the complainant Visaji Dungraji Gohil, Residing at: Khimna-Vas, Ta: Vav, registered a complaint against present respondents accused with Vav Police Station, which was registered as I-CR No. 24 of 2005 for the offences punishable Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code
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.
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 appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence and confirmed the acquittal, stating the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of compelling evidence to overturn such judgments.
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds clear illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment, reaffirming the presumption of innocence.
The judgment underscores the principle of presumption of innocence, the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt, and the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquittal without ....
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 affirmed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for conviction and the presumption of innocence for the accused.
It is settled law that if main grounds on which lower Court has based its order acquitting accused are reasonable and plausible, and same cannot be entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished....
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
