Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V.PINTO
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Ranjitsinh Prabhatsinh Khant – 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 learned Special Judge & 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 67 of 2010 on 09.04.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 (1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act)
2] When the matter is called out, learned APP submits a report of Virpur Police Station, Unarmed Head Constable V. N. Chauhan of Virpur Police Station, District Mahisagar stating that the respondent No.2 Prabhatsinh Motisinh Khant has expired in 2013 and submits a copy of the certificate of Talati-cum-Mantri, Pasroda Gram Panchayat, Taluka Virpur, District Mahisagar stating that the respondent No. 2 has expired in the year 2013. In view of the same, the appeal qua respondent No. 2 has
An appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's reasoning is unreasonable or illegal, maintaining the presumption of innocence unless proved 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 appellate court must defer to a trial court's acquittal when the trial's basis is reasonable, emphasizing the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law.
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.
An appellate court respects trial court's acquittal unless the findings are unreasonable; presumption of innocence remains strong post-acquittal.
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, 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, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence, not overturning a trial court's reasonable judgment based on lack of evidence and contradictions.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's reasonable conclusions, intervening only if the acquittal is perverse or illegal.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and that conflicting witness testimonies do not establish guilt beyond ....
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
