before the concerned trial
Court, the present petitioner accused has been
wrongly convicted by the concerned trial Court and,
therefore, the petitioner is having ... petitioner on merits by contending
that the concerned trial Court has wrongly convicted
the present petitioner. In support of the said
contention, learned advocate
accused No. 5 was simply the passenger and he has been wrongly convicted. He has submitted that the accused No. 5 was in custody from ... accused No. 4 was a passenger and he has been wrongly convicted.
13. Mr. K. J. Kakkad, the learned Advocate has appeared for the original
considered the probable defence of the
appellants and has wrongly convicted the appellants. Learned
Page 4 of 9
HC-NIC Page 4 of 9 Created ... learned trial Judge has
wrongly considered the evidence of the prosecution and
wrongly convicted them for the alleged offences. Mr. Mehta
read the charge
Dowry Act are not proved prima-facie, learned
trial Judge has wrongly convicted the present appellant-
accused.
[10.10] He read the oral witness ... committed grave error
in considering the evidences of related witnesses and
wrongly convicted the appellant-accused. At the last, Mr.
Mansuri, learned advocate, requested
considered the probable defence of the applicant-accused and
has wrongly convicted the applicant-accused. In present case,
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kutiyana convicted ... learned trial Judge
has wrongly considered the evidence of the prosecution and
wrongly convicted the applicant-accused for the alleged
offences. He therefore, urged that
courts have been compelled to accept that "society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals". I find this Court
convicted. It is
submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and wrongly
convicted and in order to prove his innocence, the applicant
mat be permitted
whereby, both the accused have been convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.
5. Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction ... proved and that accused No. 2 has been wrongly convicted for an offence under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
8. Shri
held that the accused No. 1 opponent No. 2 had been wrongly convicted for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code and altered
innocent and
he has not committed any offence and was wrongly
charge-sheeted. The appellant-accused has denied the
case of the prosecution and submitted ... properly
considered the defence version of the appellant-accused
and wrongly convicted him even though consent is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Looking
