Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO, J
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
BHARATBHAI DALSANGBHAI CHAUDHARI – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1528 of 2009
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506(2), 403 - Gujarat Police Act - Section 135 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, acquitting them of charges related to assault and intimidation - The prosecution's evidence was found insufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, with key witnesses turning hostile and contradictions in testimonies noted. (Paras 1, 10, 12)
(B) Acquittal Appeals - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless they are unreasonable or perverse - The court reiterated that the appellate court has the power to review evidence but should not interfere if the trial court's view is plausible. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged assault by the accused after a dispute over garbage disposal, leading to injuries. The trial court found the evidence insufficient to support the allegations.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's acquittal was based on a lack of credible evidence and the benefit of doubt was rightly extended to the accused.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that an acquittal should not be disturbed unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed; the acquittal is confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
(S. V. PINTO, J.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity - Main), Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 1 of 2009 on 30.05.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 147 , 149 , 323 , 504 , 506(2) and 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act (GP Act) and Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 1989 (Atrocities Act).
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 That the complainant Pushpaben Rameshbhai Parmar, who was working as a peon in the Old Sachivalya, Roads and Buildings Department and was residing in Block No. 162/3 J/2 type quarters in Sector 7, Gandhinagar. The accused No. 4 and his family members residing in Block No. 164/ 4 would often throw garbage in front of the house of the complainant and an application in the Notified Area Office was submitted and the officers from the Notified Area Office came and warned the accused No. 4 and his family members, not to throw garbage, on the road. On 30.08.2008, when the complainant returned from her work at around 6.30 pm, all the accused persons came and quarrelled with her and threatened her, as to why, she had filed an application in the Notified Area Office. The accused No. 1 had a pipe in his hand and he assaulted the husband of the complainant and the accused No. 3 gave a blow with a hockey stick on the back of the complainant and caught her hair and threw her on the road. The other accused also assaulted the husband of the complainant and some unknown persons came and saved them. The complaint was filed by the complainant on 30.08.2008 before the Sector 7 Police Station in Gandhinagar, which was registered under Sections 323 , 504 , 506 , 403 , 147 , 148 of the IPC , Section 135 of the GP Act and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered as I-C.R.No. 395 of 2008.
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Gandhi Nagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 1 of 2009.
2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 6 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 7 to 12, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced eleven oral evidences and thirteen documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.49, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the argume
An appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
An appellate court must defer to a trial court's acquittal when the trial's basis is reasonable, emphasizing the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law.
The appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence, stating that acquittals should not be disturbed unless the trial court's judgment is unreasonable.
An appellate court respects trial court's acquittal unless the findings are unreasonable; presumption of innocence remains strong post-acquittal.
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is paramount; the appellate court must confirm that the trial court's decision was based on reasonable evidence before interfering.
An appellate court may review acquittals but must respect the trial court's findings if deemed reasonable and should maintain the presumption of innocence for the accused.
In acquittal cases, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only intervene if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's reasonable conclusions, intervening only if the acquittal is perverse or illegal.
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence, not overturning a trial court's reasonable judgment based on lack of evidence and contradictions.
The court upheld the presumption of innocence, affirming that a reasonable doubt in prosecution evidence justifies acquittal, and appellate review should respect trial court findings unless perverse.
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
