HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Bijrajsingh @ Bijju Ajitsingh Chudasma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, in short) is directed against judgment and order dated 13.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 338 of 2006, wherein, respondents-original accused no. 2 and 3 along with accused No.1 came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short). At the end of trial, the trial Court acquitted Bijrajsingh @ Bijju Ajitsingh Chudasma – original accused no. 2 and Hasmukhkumar Dineshbhai Rawat – original accused no. 3 from all the charges. However, the court below convicted the accused no. 1 for the offence of murder and robbery.
2. The facts and circumstances, giving rise to this appeal are as under:
2.1 Deceased Pintoo was resident of Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad and he was passionate to wear golden chains and rings and he was used to wear two golden chains, rings and keep with him the latest mobile phone. The father of the deceased was custom officer and mother settled at Canada. The deceased was living with his eld
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings in acquittal appeals unless they are proven to be perverse or arbitrary.
The prosecution must prove common intention for liability under Section 34 IPC; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
The presumption of innocence remains paramount; an acquittal will only be overturned if there is compelling evidence that the trial court's decision was perverse or unreasonable.
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 prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.
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 essence of criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act, which must be established by sufficient evidence; mere allegations are inadequate for conviction.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to prove guilt, especially in cases of acquittal.
The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The appellate court emphasized the need for compelling evidence, asserting the principle of double presumption of innocence in cases of acquittal.
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.