Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO, J
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
BHARATBHAI DALSANGBHAI CHAUDHARI – Respondent
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 r
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
