Back
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Bharatbhai Ishwarbhai Rathod – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31/08/2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No.70 of 2007, whereby, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the original accused respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”), Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Panchayat Act .
1.1 At the outset, it may be noted that the respondent No.1 – Bharatbhai Ishwarbhai Rathod (original accused No.1), having expired pending the appeal, the appeal stands abated qua the said respondent No.1.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that, the complainant Sirajbhai Alibhai Patel lodged complaint before Vagra Police Station against the accused persons for the offences punishable Under Sections 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of compelling evidence to overturn such judgments.
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 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 confirmed the acquittal, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is unreasonable or perverse.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless they are perverse or illegal, reaffirming the high burden of proof required in criminal cases.
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
