BIREN VAISHNAV, MAULIK J. SHELAT
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
RAGHAVJI BHAGAVNJI KACHHTIYA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, dated 30.09.2002. By the judgment and order, the learned Trial Court, in Sessions Case No. 114 of 1998, acquitted the respondents-accused for the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief case of the prosecution as per the First Information Report is that the accused no. 1-Raghavji Bhagvanji is the son of the deceased Bhagvanji Nanji. He is the second son of the deceased who was staying with his wife, the accused no. 2-Manjuben. The incident occurred as a result of a dispute with regard to the maintenance amount that the accused had agreed to pay to the deceased father. Since the accused did not pay the amount and demand was made by the father Bhagvanji, as per the case of the prosecution, when the father demanded the amount from the son-the accused no. 1, he was told to come to the house in the evening so that the dispute could be settled. When the accused and his wife were at home in the
Arulvelu and another vs. State
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka
H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Kalyan v. State of U.P. (2001) 9 SCC 632
State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Niwas
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, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for clear evidence of guilt, reaffirming that if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the one ....
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 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 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 presumption of innocence and the necessity for credible evidence, particularly regarding dying declarations.
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, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence for conviction and the presumption of innocence in criminal cases.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the s....
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.