Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Harshadbhai Govindbhai Katrodiya, an Authority under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2015. The original case involved the accused, Bharatkumar Ramanlal Purohit and others, who were running Krishna Maternity and Sonography Clinic at Sihor, District Bhavnagar. The prosecution case was that the Block Health Officer and Executive Magistrate, Sihor visited the clinic and found that accused No.1, Dr. Bharatkumar Purohit, breached the provisions of the Act, 1994. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the appellate court confirmed the acquittal. The appellant challenged this acquittal. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court held that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and that the appellant did not make out a case for interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court's power to interfere with an acquittal is limited; unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence, the appellate court should not substitute its own view. Held that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-10). B) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act - Offence under Section 23(1) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused violated the provisions of the Act. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused doctor conducted sonography without maintaining proper records as required under the Act. Held that the acquittal was justified (Paras 2-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2015 was perverse or against the weight of evidence, warranting interference under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2015.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on prosecution
- Acquittal appeal under Section 378 CrPC
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption of innocence
- Strict construction of penal provisions
