Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
PRANAV TRIVEDI
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Modhsinh Kuvarsinh Vaghela – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
[1] The present revision application is filed by the applicant - State under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") challenging the judgment and order dated 22.06.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2014 by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court"), wherein the appeal preferred by the State was rejected and the accused came to be acquitted from the offences leveled against them.
[2] The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision application are that the complainant, namely Shantaba Balwantsinh Vaghela had filed a complaint on 26.06.2013, which was registered as C.R.No.I-68/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"). The allegations leveled against the accused were that there was an altercation between the present applicant and the complainant, during which injuries were inflicted upon the complainant. In view of the same, offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC were leveled against the applicant her
The revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited, and the court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is manifest illegalit....
Misreading of evidence by trial and appellate Courts constitutes a manifest illegality, justifying the High Court's intervention in revisional jurisdiction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness statements undermine conviction.
The court established that unexplained delays in lodging FIRs and contradictions in witness testimonies can undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating careful judicial scrutiny.
The High Court's power to set aside an acquittal is limited to exceptional cases with glaring defects or manifest errors, as established in precedent.
An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittal should not be disturbed without cogent grounds.
Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, limiting interference to exceptional cases only where manifest injustice or procedural errors exist, emphasizing the importance of the trial co....
The conviction under Section 326 IPC was upheld based on reliable witness testimonies and corroborating medical evidence, affirming that defects in investigation do not negate the prosecution's case.
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
