Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Evidence Must Be Beyond Reasonable Doubt": Gujarat High Court Dismisses Appeal in 1998 Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Acquittal of Rayjibhai Bhagabhai Bariya upheld due to lack of substantial evidence; court emphasizes the burden of proof in criminal cases.

The High Court of Gujarat has dismissed an appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused in a 1998 murder case. The appeal, which sought to overturn the trial court’s decision, was rejected by a bench comprising Justices Nirzar S. Desai and Hasmukh D. Suthar. The court found no substantive evidence to support the prosecution's claims against the surviving accused, particularly concerning charges under Sections 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

On July 16, 1998, Parvatbhai Hathibhai filed an FIR reporting the death of his cousin, Hirabhai Titabhai Chavda, alleging it was initially presented as an accident. The incident involved Hirabhai being found dead near Charan Gam bus stand after being allegedly poisoned and assaulted by the accused. The investigation suggested that Hirabhai was murdered and his body placed to simulate an accident. The accused, Mangalbhai Jethabhai Patel, Dilipbhai @ Kalubhai Mangalbhai Patel, and Rayjibhai Bhagabhai Bariya, were arrested and charged under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 (murder) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence).

The High Court scrutinized the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the role of the surviving accused, Rayjibhai Bhagabhai Bariya. The court noted that the trial court had acquitted the accused due to the lack of credible evidence directly implicating them in the murder.

"On perusal of the record, we found that there are no allegations against the accused respondent no. 3 to the effect that he has assaulted the deceased Hirabhai and that he was carrying any weapons," observed the bench​​.

The prosecution contended that Rayjibhai had misled the first informant and aided in projecting the murder as an accident. However, the court found these allegations insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

"The only role attributed to the surviving respondent no. 3 Rayjibhai was that he was present at the scene of the offence and tried to destroy the evidence by projecting the murder of the deceased as an accident," the judgment stated​​.

The court emphasized the principles of criminal jurisprudence, stating that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.

"It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if another 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," the bench reiterated​​.

Justice Desai, delivering the judgment, noted, "The findings recorded by the learned trial court are not perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable"​​.

The High Court's decision to uphold the acquittal underscores the importance of substantial and direct evidence in criminal convictions. By affirming the trial court’s judgment, the court highlighted the necessity of a thorough and credible prosecution in securing convictions, thereby reinforcing the legal standard required for overturning acquittals. This ruling serves as a significant reference for future cases involving appeals against acquittals based on insufficient evidence.

 

Date of Decision: May 21, 2024

State of Gujarat vs. Mangalbhai Jethabhai Patel & Ors.

Similar News