Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Dahyabhai Haribhai Rabari – 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 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 114/2010 on 22.07.2013, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of 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 The complainant Rajiben - widow of Chamanbhai Dharmabhai Valmiki had about 8 vighas of agricultural land in joint ownership situated in the outskirts of village Motakapara and the land was mortgaged to the accused by her husband thrice for the amounts of Rs. 24000/-, Rs. 27000/- and Rs. 28000/- and in all an amount
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and interference is warranted only when the trial court's judgment is unreasonable or perverse.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence of caste slurs or threats, emphasizing the presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals.
An appeal against acquittal should respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere if the acquittal is based on reasonable conclusions drawn from evidence.
In acquittal appeals, presumption of innocence is reinforced, and the appellate court should only interfere with the acquittal if the trial court's ruling is perverse or unreasonable based on the pre....
The presumption of innocence in criminal cases prevents appellate courts from overturning acquittals unless the trial judgment lacks a reasonable basis or is perverse.
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence favors the accused, limiting the appellate court's interference unless the trial court's decision is unreasonable or lacks proper evidence.
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is found to be unreasonable or lacks a proper evidentiary basis.
An appellate court has broad powers to review evidence in acquittal appeals but should exercise caution, respecting the presumption of innocence unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable.
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect trial court decisions unless there is compelling evidence of error or misapprehension, maintaining the presumption of innocence for the accused.
An appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are unreasonable or perverse, reaffirming 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
