Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, D.M.Vyas
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Rupabhai Valabhai Patel – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2013 rendered in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dahod, whereby, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in the said case, were acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 436 , 506(2), 147 and 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC).
2. Fact germane to dispose of this appeal may briefly be stated as follow:
2.1 The complainant by name Manishaben Mahendrasinh Chauhan is the resident of Dabhwa Faliya, presently residing at: Dogawada, Taluka: Devgadh Bariya. Mahendrasinh is her husband. It is stated that on 12.12.2009 at about 8:30 p.m. in the night time, PW-3 who is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who is examined as PW-1, came to the house of PW-1 and informed her that her husband, while driving a Jeep, dashed against the son and the son-in-law of Accuse No. 1 (A-1) and that, they died in the said accident and A-1 got enraged and that, he is coming with A-2 to A-5 towards her house. At that time, it is stated that, PW-1, who is the complainant and her brother-in-law who is examined as PW-2
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; lack of reliable evidence and delay in lodging the FIR resulted in acquittal.
The acquittal was upheld due to unreliable witness testimony and lack of strong evidence against the accused, highlighting the burden of proof on the prosecution.
(1) Mere suspicion would not be sufficient unless circumstantial evidence tendered by prosecution leads to conclusion that it “must be true” and not “may be true”.(2) Failure to explain can only be h....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for a murder conviction; lack of eyewitness testimony and credible evidence led to the acquittal.
A sudden quarrel leading to an unintentional act resulting in death qualifies for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
The conviction for arson was overturned due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt.
A dying declaration must be credible and corroborated; otherwise, the accused cannot be convicted without evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must result in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and non-examination of key witnesses can undermine the entire case, justifying acquittal.
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
