Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ
Rajendrasinh Jaydevsinh Dabhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.73 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 435 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants – the convicts have preferred Criminal Appeal no.2593 of 2005 under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of conviction.
It is reported that by passage of time, Criminal Appeal No.2593 of 2005 is abated qua appellants Nos.2 and 9, respectively, as they are no more. The learned senior advocate has tendered their death certificates. The same are taken on record.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 16.04.1999 at about 4:00 p.m., the complainant – Nasirbhai Mujarbhai Ahmadi has received telephonic message, when he was at his home at Ahmedabad, that a mob has rushed to his Farm House, which is known as ‘Divetiya Farm’ and has damaged the farm house, agricultural equipment and thereby committed an offence of loot. Thereafter, the complainant has vis
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory testimonies and lack of evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; appellate review requires solid evidence to uphold conviction, especially regarding armed dacoity and trespass.
The judgment emphasized the importance of proving the possession of stolen property by the accused and the need to examine the investigating officer to establish the occurrence and recovery of looted....
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; failure to provide corroborative evidence and reliance on unreliable witness testimony undermines conviction under dacoity with murder.
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
The prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and corroborating evidence is essential. Non-examination of key witnesses, lack of corroboration, and inconsistencies in the evidence ca....
Conviction under Section 395 IPC requires involvement of five or more persons; prosecution's failure to prove guilt leads to acquittal when reasonable doubt exists.
Conviction for dacoity under Section 395 IPC cannot stand if fewer than five persons are charged, highlighting the importance of substantive evidence and adherence to legal definitions.
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
