Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V.PINTO
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Nathu Bhimji Rabari – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case and complaint (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments of the appellant and respondent (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis and reasoning (Para 4 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. judgment confirmation and order (Para 11 , 12) |
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 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Special Judge (Atrocity), District Kutch @ Bhuj (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special Case (Atrocity) No.08 of 2015 on 28.04.2016, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 504, and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’).
1.1. 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. The relevant facts lead
In appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is upheld; interference is only warranted in clear cases of manifest illegality or perversity in the lower court's reasoning.
The court upheld the presumption of innocence, affirming that a reasonable doubt in prosecution evidence justifies acquittal, and appellate review should respect trial court findings unless perverse.
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence prevails, and interference is only justified if the lower court's decision is perverse or illegal; evidence must establish guilt beyond a reasonable....
In criminal appeals against acquittals, the presumption of innocence prevails and the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants upholding the acquittal.
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is paramount; the appellate court must confirm that the trial court's decision was based on reasonable evidence before interfering.
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
An appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or based on manifest illegality.
An appellate court may review acquittals but must respect the trial court's findings if deemed reasonable and should maintain the presumption of innocence for the accused.
In acquittal appeals, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and acquittals are upheld when evidence is insufficient to support charges.
In acquittal appeals, evidence must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; presumption of innocence remains unless proven otherwise.
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
