Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, D.M.VYAS
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Kiritsinh @ Karansinh Sidubha Jadeja – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.07.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 109 of 2006 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, whereby, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) in the said case were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 323, 326 r/w. 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and Section 135(1) of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT .
2. Outlined facts of the prosecution case may stated as follow:
2.1 PW-1 is the complainant. He is the resident of Samrat Ashoknagar in Jamnagar city. PW-2 and PW-6 are the sons of PW-1 and PW-3 is the daughter of PW-1. They all are residing together in the house of PW-1. A1 is also the resident of the same street and he is also residing nearby the house of PW-1. A2 and A3 are the brothers of A1 and they are all residing together in one house.
2.2 It is stated that on 19.08.1995, at about 11:30 a.m., PW-1 was hearing music in his tap-recorder. At the same time, A1 was also hearing the music in his tap-recorder at his house. As PW-1 was hearing the tap-recorder with high volume of sound, A1 requested him to reduce the volume of sound. But, i
The standard of proof in criminal trials is beyond reasonable doubt; any ambiguity or inconsistency in the prosecution's evidence justifies acquittal.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for a murder conviction; lack of eyewitness testimony and credible evidence led to the acquittal.
The prosecution's failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt renders the accused entitled to acquittal and benefit of doubt.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be compelling to establish guilt; mere suspicion or inadequate proof does not suffice for conviction.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, affirming that the presumption of innocence remains with the accused and that trial court findings must not be perverse for interference.
In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; any doubts benefit the accused, making acquittal appropriate where evidence is inconsistent or insufficient.
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellate court will not overturn a trial court's acquittal unless there is a clear demonstration of perversity or legal error in the evidence assessment.
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.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony undermine the case against 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
