Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
State vs Babrabhai on 20 December, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/6611/2010	 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6611 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 999 of
2010 
===============================================
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

BABRABHAI
KARSHANBHAI PATEL - Respondent(s)
 

===============================================
Appearance
: 
MR AJ
DESAI, ADDL. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
===============================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

Date
: 01/12/2010  
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

This
is an application for leave to appeal to challenge the judgment and
order passed in Special Case No.56 of 2009 by Special Court,
Banaskantha on 10th November, 2009 acquitting the
respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Schedule Caste &
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.

2. Upon
going through the judgment, it is clear that the complainant and the
accused were on inimical terms. It also transpires that no
independent witness has supported the incidence. The trial Court has,
on these counts, recorded acquittal.

3. In
our view, when the offences are of nature where there cannot be any
other contemporaneous corroborative evidence because the offices can
be committed only by utterance, the fact has to be proved by cogent
evidence. When independent witness does not support the prosecution
case and when it is found that the accused and the complainant are on
inimical terms, the possibility of false implication because of
inimical terms cannot be ruled out. Under the circumstances, trial
Court was, therefore, justified in recording acquittal. Leave is
refused. The application and the appeal stand dismissed.

[A.L.DAVE,
J.]

[K.M.THAKER,
J.]

kdc

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.120 seconds.