Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

Sole Eyewitness Testimony Unreliable, Private Defense Valid: Gujarat High Court Dismisses State's Appeal in Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of Bhikhabhai Punjabhai Solanki and others in a case involving the alleged murder of Vitthalbhai. The court highlighted the unreliability of the sole eyewitness and reaffirmed the principle of double presumption of innocence.

The case stems from an incident on 28th August 1990, where Vitthalbhai was allegedly assaulted by the respondents, leading to his death the next day. The prosecution's case primarily relied on the testimony of Sureshbhai, the brother of the deceased.

The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence, the unreliability of the sole eyewitness, and the defense of private defense by one of the accused, Revaben.

The State appealed the acquittal, contending that the trial court erred in dismissing the eyewitness testimony and misjudged the applicability of private defense.

The High Court scrutinized the conduct of Sureshbhai, noting significant delays and inconsistencies in his testimony. The court observed, “PW-1’s conduct and delayed reporting of the incident raised doubts about his presence at the crime scene” [Paras 11-14, 20-21].

The court emphasized that no corroboration from other witnesses was available, further undermining the credibility of PW-1.

The court accepted Revaben's defense under Section 100 of the IPC, which allows for the right of private defense against an assault. The court noted, “The defense of Accused No.3 under Section 100 of IPC was accepted as she acted in self-defense against the deceased's alleged assault” [Paras 11-14, 20-21].

The judgment reiterated the principle of double presumption of innocence in favor of the acquitted, stressing that an appellate court should interfere only if the trial court’s judgment is perverse or based on an erroneous view of law [Paras 15-17].

The court referenced several precedents, including Babu vs. State of Kerala and Ghurey Lal vs. State of U.P, to underline the cautious approach needed in overturning acquittals.

Decision: The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no compelling reasons to disturb the trial court’s judgment. The court ordered the cancellation of bail bonds and discharge of surety for the respondents [Paras 22-24].

Date of Decision: 15th May 2024.

State of Gujarat vs. Bhikhabhai Punjabhai Solanki & Ors.

Latest Legal News