IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAULIK J.SHELAT, P.M.RAVAL
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Kathi Visubhai Najbhai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 16.10.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as“the Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.48 of 1997, whereby the Trial Court acquitted the respondents of the charges levelled against them under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. At the outset, it requires to be noted that out of the three respondents – accused, this Court vide its order dated 15.07.1999 granted leave insofar as respondent No.1 - original accused No.1 – Kathi Visu Najbhai (hereinafter referred to as “the accused“) is concerned and the appeal stands dismissed qua respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
3.1. It is the case of the complainant - Champaben, wife of Rajabhai Jivanbhai Koli, that she was residing at Ninama, Taluka: Sayla, with her husband and mother-in- law and was doing household chores and agricultural work. On the date of incident i.e., on 09-

Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another V/s. State of Uttarakhand
The acquittal of accused in a murder case was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the importance of credible evidence in criminal proceedings.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless there is a clear error or misreading of evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; acquittal should not be disturbed unless clear error or perversity is shown.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of direct evidence.
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the trial court's decision is perverse or lacks evidentiary support, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to significant contradictions in the victim's testimony and absence of supporting medical evidence, reinforcing the presumption of innocenc....
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is perverse or unsupported by the evidence.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that two reasonable views should not disturb the trial ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court if two reasonable....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.