Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Valkubhai Babubhaivala and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 2010
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 324, 186, 34 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of charges related to assault and obstruction of public servant, finding insufficient evidence to support the prosecution's case. The appeal was filed by the State challenging the acquittal, arguing that the trial court erred in its judgment. (Paras 1, 4, 12)
(B) Acquittal - Principles governing appeals against acquittal - An appellate court can review evidence but should not interfere with an acquittal unless there is manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment. The presumption of innocence remains strong in favor of the accused. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, a police head constable, alleged that he and a colleague were assaulted while attempting to conduct a prohibition raid. The accused were acquitted due to lack of credible evidence. (Paras 3.1, 11)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence, including the absence of a patrol book and hostile witnesses, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 12)
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of evidence presented by the prosecution and the validity of the trial court's acquittal. (Paras 4, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the acquittal was justified due to the lack of credible evidence and the presumption of innocence. (Paras 12)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 21.01.2010 in Sessions Case No.144 of 2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.5, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 186 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and under Section 135 of the B.P.Act. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. During pendecy of the present appeal, the respondent No.1 – original accused No.1 Valkubhai Babubhai Vala has expired on 19.04.2023. Copy of the death certificate is produced and the same is taken on record, and hence, the present appeal qua respondent No.1 herein – original accused No.1 stands disposed of as infructuous.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. The complainant Ambalal Laljibhai Patel unarmed Police Head Constable, Rajkot Taluka Police Station filed the complaint on 02.05.1993 stating that he along with constable Dilipsinh Pathubha were in patrolling on Raiya Road, Vitrak Society and Neminath Society area on the main road and on 17:30 hours, they reached the Gandhigram area and at around 18:00 hours, they received a secret information that Kathi Valkubhai Babubhai Vada has liquor in his house, and at that time, when they were near the street of Rakesh Pan they saw Kathi Valkubhai Babubhai coming and they shouted and halted him and told him that they wanted to conduct a prohibition raid at his house. That he took an open knife from his waist and tried to assault the complainant Ambalal Laljibhai Patel but he was caught by constable Dilipsinh Pathubha and he tried to hit the complainant and the complainant caught the knife with his left hand and he was injured on his last two fingers and palm of his left hand which started bleeding. That other persons were gathered there and Rakesh Soni had a sickle in his hand, Manglubhai, the brother of Kathi Valkubhai Babubhai, had open knife in his hand and they both had tried to assault the complainant and police constable Dilipsinh and both of them sustained injuries and they all ran away. The complainant filed the complaint at I-C.R.No. 189 of 1993 with Rajkot Taluka Police Station under Section 333, 324, 34, 186 of the IPC and under Section 135 of the B.P.Act, on 02.05.1993.
3.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions therefore, after completion of process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.144 of 2008.
3.3. 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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.16 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.17 to 20 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and has produced 10 documentary evidence in support of the case.
3.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.48, the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded. After hea
An appellate court may review evidence in acquittal appeals but should not interfere unless there is manifest illegality or the trial court's judgment is unreasonable.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only intervene if the trial court's decision is perverse or unsupported by evidence.
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence prevails, and the appellate court should only interfere if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
In appeals against acquittal, conviction requires clear evidence; presumption of innocence is paramount, and acquittals should not be reversed without manifest illegality.
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.
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless there is clear evidence of illegality or perversity.
An appellate court has broad powers to review evidence in acquittal appeals but should exercise caution, respecting the presumption of innocence unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable.
An appellate court may review evidence in acquittal cases but should not interfere unless the trial court's decision is unreasonable or perverse, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's decision is perverse or unreasonable.
The appellate court may review evidence in acquittal appeals but should not reverse a trial court's acquittal unless the trial court's decision is unreasonable or 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
