Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years

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