Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V.PINTO
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Vejabhai Gangabhai Sutreja – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
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 Judge and 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 28/2010 on 05.04.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2) and Section 114 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 respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” in the rank and file as they 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 25.06.2010, at around 08.30 am, the complainant - Amrabhai Meghabai Singal had gone to his agricultural field situated in the Naredi village with his wife Rasilaben Amrabhai Singal and son Rajeshbhai Amrabhai Singal and found that the accused whose field is adjoining the field o
In acquittal appeals, evidence must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; presumption of innocence remains unless proven otherwise.
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.
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 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.
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 cases, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only intervene if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.
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.
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 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
