Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V.PINTO
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Vijay @ Dipu Savaisinh Chauhan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special (Atrocity) Judge, and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 33/2014 on 29.06.2017, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 325, 337 and 506(2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity Act” for short).
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” 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 On 07.09.2014, at around 20.00 hours, the complainant - Manishkumar Kanhaiyalal Kapadia and his friend Shishir Kantilal Vaghela were going towards Chandkeda - Motera village to get a xerox copy of a document when the accused and Jameel Rathod met them. The complainant greeted Jameel Ra
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 prevails, and interference is only justified if the lower court's decision is perverse or illegal; evidence must establish guilt beyond a reasonable....
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.
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 is paramount; the appellate court must confirm that the trial court's decision was based on reasonable evidence before interfering.
In acquittal appeals, courts maintain a presumption of innocence, only reversing if the trial court's conclusions are unjustifiable based on the evidence presented.
The appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence, stating that acquittals should not be disturbed unless the trial court's judgment is unreasonable.
In acquittal appeals, evidence must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; presumption of innocence remains unless proven otherwise.
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.
An acquittal can only be overturned on appeal if the trial court's judgment was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
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
