Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Koli Dungarbhai Khegarbhai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident description and complaint (Para 2) |
| 2. prosecution's argument on evidence (Para 3) |
| 3. review of evidence and witness statements (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. justification of acquittal (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. confirmation of acquittal (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
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 Additional Sessions & Special Judge, Dhrangadhra (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 10 of 2005 on 03.03.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989.
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as he 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 on 02-09-2004, the complainant Hirabhai Khetabhai
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is unreasonable or perverse.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless they are perverse or illegal, reaffirming the high burden of proof required in criminal cases.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not overturn acquittals unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for conviction and the presumption of innocence for the accused.
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and should not interfere with an acquittal unless there is manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment.
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the prosecution's evidence conclusively proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, affirming the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not overturn acquittals unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.
In acquittal appeals, presumption of innocence is reinforced, and the appellate court should only interfere with the acquittal if the trial court's ruling is perverse or unreasonable based on the pre....
The judgment underscores the principle of presumption of innocence, the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt, and the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquittal without ....
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
