Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION)
NO. 1439 of 2023 ==================================================
SAHDEV CHIRAGBHAI SAHU Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. JYOTI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 17/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR. RAJENDRA D JADHAV(10026) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court emphasized that a conviction in a criminal case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not merely on preponderance of probabilities.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections relevant to bail and appeal - The applicant sought to quash the judgment of conviction and requested bail pending the revision application. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the suspension of the sentence and granting of bail. (Paras 1, 2)

(B) Burden of Proof - The conviction was based on preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, which is insufficient for a criminal conviction. (Para 1)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was convicted by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, and sought to quash this judgment while requesting bail during the pendency of the revision application.

Findings of Court:
The court suspended the sentence and granted bail on conditions, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to meet the burden of proof.

Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the conditions under which bail could be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conviction based on preponderance of probabilities does not meet the standard required for criminal conviction, thus allowing bail.

Result: Bail granted.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The court emphasized that a criminal conviction must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not merely on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. This standard is critical to uphold the integrity of criminal justice procedures (!) .
The applicant was convicted by a lower court and sought to quash this judgment while requesting bail during the pendency of the revision application. The court considered whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and under what conditions bail could be granted (!) (!) .
The court found that the conviction was based on preponderance of probabilities rather than the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the court suspended the sentence and granted bail to the applicant, subject to certain conditions (!) .
The conditions for bail included maintaining law and order, not engaging in activities that breach public peace, not leaving the state without permission, and paying any outstanding fines (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted that despite an order granting interim relief and bail, there was no record of the applicant filing an affidavit of direct service. The court clarified that if such an affidavit is not filed by the next hearing date, the interim relief and bail would be automatically vacated, and the matter was adjourned accordingly (!) .
The overall decision underscores the importance of proper proof standards in criminal cases and the procedural requirements for maintaining interim relief during revision proceedings.

ORDER :

(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)

[1] On 28.11.2023, the co-ordinate bench of this Court had passed the following order :

"Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.

By preferring this application, applicant has requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2022 as well as to confirm the judgment and order dated 1.1.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case No.46158 of 2014 and release him on bail during the pendency of the present revision application.

Heard learned advocate for the applicant.

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant as required in the criminal case and the conviction of the revisionist in the present case is only on the basis of preponderance and probabilities.

During the hearing and final disposal of the present revision application, the sentence imposed upon the applicant vide judgment and order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2022 stands suspended and applicant is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and on the following conditions:

(a) shall maintain law and order;

(b) shall not indulge in any activity leading to breach of public peace and tranquility.

(d) shall pay the fine, if not paid;

Direct service is permitted.."

[2] Despite the order dated 28.11.2023, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has filed the affidavit of direct service. The matter pertains to the year 2023 and the applicant has been granted interim relief vide order dated 28.11.2023. It is clarified that if by the next date of hearing, the affidavit of direct service is not filed by the applicant then the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 would be automatically vacated. In view of the same, the matter is adjourned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document