SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
GOVINDBHAI NATHUBHAI BORIA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.
1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.10.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 142 of 1994, whereby the accused persons have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 302, 324 read with Section 37(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134 of Bombay Police Act.
2. While admitting the appeal, this Court has recorded thus:
2.1. Subsequent to admission of appeal, bailable warrant was issued on 05.08.2015, wherein the report indicated that respondent accused no. 2 had expired and, therefore, appeal qua respondent accused no. 2 stands abated.
3. After admitting the appeal, by way of order dated 29.03.2022, this Court had recorded thus:
Akthar & Ors. v. State of Uttranchal
Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra
The appellate court reversed the acquittal of certain accused based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, convicting them under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
Conviction under Sections 302 and 326 of IPC requires credible ocular evidence, with emphasis on eyewitness credibility, especially from injured parties, establishing guilt despite differing roles am....
Eyewitness testimony carries significant evidentiary weight; convictions can be sustained on reliable single eyewitness accounts without need for corroboration if found trustworthy.
The evidentiary burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not met, leading to the upheld acquittal of the accused.
The court reaffirms that police conduct during official duties must not infringe on rights, prioritizing eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt over medical evidence, thus validating convictions ....
The appellate court emphasized that minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine overall reliability, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing the burden of proof on the prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the common intention of the accused nos.1 and 3 to kill the deceased, and the c....
The conviction of the accused was reversed due to insufficient corroboration of eye-witness accounts and the potential for false implication stemming from previous enmity.
Failure on the part of the prosecution to explain or disclose the genesis of the offence is also an additional factor which renders the prosecution story a bit doubtful.
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.