Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Acquittal of Accused in Criminal Case, Lecture notes of Theory of Formal Languages for Automata

Kurukshetra UniversityTheory of Formal Languages for Automata

A criminal appeal filed by the state of gujarat against the acquittal of the accused in a case involving charges under sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 of the indian penal code and section 135(1) of the bombay police act. The appeal was filed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the additional city sessions judge, ahmedabad. The brief facts of the case, the prosecution's evidence, the trial court's reasoning for the acquittal, and the principles of criminal jurisprudence governing appeals against acquittal. The court ultimately upholds the trial court's decision, finding no grounds to interfere with the acquittal order.

Typology: Lecture notes

2020/2021

Uploaded on 03/26/2023

kriti-sharma-4
kriti-sharma-4 🇮🇳

2 documents

1 / 8

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
R/CR.A/518/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 518 of 1996
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KISHORBHAI DEVJIBHAI PARMAR & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
MR UI VYAS(1000) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,5
MR. KARAN U VYAS(6992) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN
Date : 11/07/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA)
Page 1 of 8
Downloaded on : Mon Mar 20 00:15:27 IST 2023
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8

Partial preview of the text

Download Acquittal of Accused in Criminal Case and more Lecture notes Theory of Formal Languages for Automata in PDF only on Docsity!

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 518 of 1996 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder? ========================================================== STATE OF GUJARAT Versus KISHORBHAI DEVJIBHAI PARMAR & 4 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance: MS CM SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4 MR UI VYAS(1000) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3, MR. KARAN U VYAS(6992) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3, ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN Date : 11/07/ ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA) Page 1 of 8

  1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.04.1996 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.145 of 1995, whereby the respondents accused came to be acquitted for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and under section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – State has preferred present appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).
  2. Brief facts leading to prosecution case can be stated thus deceased – Babubhai was having one sister named Laxmiben and there as an incident of eve-teasing made of her, five years prior to the incident relating to the offence which had taken place on 17.03.1995 at about 8.30 pm opposite Mohanlal Shop, situated near Khadawali-ni-Chali in Gomtipur area of Ahmedabad City and thereafter, said Laxmiben had died and as there was hot exchange of words before about five years, out of grudge, incident in question had taken place. 2.1. According to prosecution, all the five accused persons came there by forming unlawful assembly with common intention to commit murder of deceased - Babubhai Makwana. When Babubhai was passing through the road, as per prosecution case, accused no.1 to 4 were armed with lathis and pipes and 5th^ accused gave fist blows and because of attack by the accused, said Babubhai sustained severe 19 injuries. As there was holi festival, police were on patrolling duty in the said area and 2 nd^ Police Inspector of Gomtipur Police Station happened to pass by during the course of his patrolling in the said area and on seeing Babubhai injured and helpless Page 2 of 8

2 Rajuben Exh. 3 Navtarbhai Exh. 4 Manubhai Exh. 5 Ramesh Laxman Exh. 6 Mahesh Babulal Exh. 7 Hansaben Exh. 8 Ratnaben Exh. 9 Hargovindbhai Exh. 10 Arvindbhai Exh. 11 Navnitlal Bhailal Exh. 12 Dr. Gaurang Govind Exh. 13 Shreemali Exh. 14 Chandansinh Chauhan Exh.

  1. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondents accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that they are innocent and false case has been filed against them.
  2. We have heard learned APP Ms. Shah for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr.K.U.Vyas for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5.
  3. It needs to be noted that respondent no.4 – accused no.4 – Dinesh Alias diniyo Ramjibhai Parmar expired on 24.11.2001, pending hearing of the present Criminal Appeal and therefore, the present Criminal Appeal qua respondent no.4 came to be abated. Page 4 of 8
  1. The prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses. It is a matter of fact that large number of prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile, as they did not support the prosecution case. Learned APP took us through the deposition of complainant – Shantaben recorded at Exh.13 and child witness – Mahesh examined at Exh.23. According to the complainant – Shantaben, child witness – Mahesh who is her grandson informed about the incident and thus, she lodged the complaint and gave names of the assailants, whereas, during her deposition she has candidly deposed that she has not given names but subsequently, names were given by her in the complaint. It has come in her deposition that she has not seen accused committing the act and as she was informed about the incident by her grandson – Mahesh, she immediately rushed to the spot and had seen later part of the offence. Apart from the complainant, two other eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Much reliance has been placed on the child witness – Mahesh examined at Exh.23. Learned Trial Judge thought it fit not to administer oath as he was not able to give proper reply to the Court’s question and therefore, his statement was recorded without giving him any oath. He has deposed that all the five accused persons were present when offence took place and he has identified all the accused persons in the open Court. The child witness in para – 3 of his cross examination admits that when first pipe blow was inflicted on head of his father, he fell down and thereafter, he ran away crying at his home. He has also deposed that it took 10 minutes to reach his home and when returned back at the scene of offence, about 1000 to 1500 people were gathered and police also came at the spot. He has also deposed that there was dark night at the time of incident. Learned Trial Judge considering deposition of child Page 5 of 8

evidence is lacking to connect the respondents accused with the crime or not brought on record sufficient evidence to establish the guilt, other corroborative evidence loses its significance or needs any consideration to upset the findings and therefore, there is no need to overburden the judgment anymore or needs any discussion of such evidence.

  1. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. (Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225). In the instant case, the learned APP has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
  2. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under: “The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and Page 7 of 8

the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."

  1. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
  2. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
  3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (S.H.VORA, J) (RAJENDRA M. SAREEN,J) SATISH Page 8 of 8