Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Khodabhai Ishwarbhai Parmar – 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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2011 on 25.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of Dowry Act.
1.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” in the rank and file 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] The accused No. 1 was the husband of deceased Jayaben, the accused No. 2 - the younger brother-in-law and the accused No. 3 - the mother-in-law of deceased Jayaben. Deceased Jayaben was married to the accused No. 1 about 6 months prior to the unfortunate incident and all the accused would physically and mentally torture deceased Jayaben to bring a motorcycle from her parent's house.
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn the trial court's decision if it is unreasonable or perverse.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of proving abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt.
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
In acquittal appeals, unless strong reasons exist, courts maintain respect for the trial court's judgment when reasonable conclusions are possible, preserving the presumption of innocence for the acc....
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable.
In acquittal appeals, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, with particular emphasis on direct evidence of instigation to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence of abetment for conviction under Section 306 IPC.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless they are unreasonable or perverse, particularly in acquittal appeals.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires direct evidence of intent or proximate acts by accused to abet suicide, with appellate courts deferring to trial findings unless clearly 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
