STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAJUBHAI MANSUKHBHAI MAACHHI

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1447 of 2009

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJUBHAI MANSUKHBHAI MAACHHI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No.
1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MRS REKHA H KAPADIA(2246) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK

Date : 17/06/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment and order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Bharuch (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in
Special (Atrocity) Case No.22 of 2008, whereby the trial Court has
acquitted the original accused Nos.1 to 4 (respondents herein) from
the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 etc
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC”) read
with Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as “the
Atrocity Act”).
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant
Natvarbhai Motibhai Solanki, Hindu (Bhangi), was belonging to
Scheduled Caste, residing at Jambusar with his family, and he was
serving in the Limaj Primary School as a Teacher, since last nine
years. That, the complainant was residing in the Vrundavan Society,
where no one of his Bhangi community, and people of Maachhi,
Vaghari, Parmar and Makwana castes were living in that society. That,
the accused No.1 Rajubhai and accused No.3 Kalidasbhai Bhikhabhai
were residing besides complainant. That, three years ago, the
accused Nos.1 & 3 quarreled with the complainant by asking why he
came to live in their society, and also beaten him and therefore, the
complainant lodged complaint against the accused persons wherein,
they were acquitted due to lack of evidence. That, other case was
pending in the Bharuch Court and date of hearing was 08.02.2008, i.e.
next day of the incident. Therefore, on the day of incident, while the
complainant was returning to his home from school, at that time, the
accused Nos.1 & 3 came in front of the complainant's home holding
sticks, and told him not to remain present in the court next day and
also gave filthy abuses to complainant and therefore, the complainant
requested them not to abuses. At that time, accused No.2
Manjulaben, wife of accused No.1 and accused No.4 Maniben, wife of
accused No.3 also came there. All the accused got angry and accused
Nos.1 & 3 inflicted stick blows on chest, stomach, and back side of
complainant. At that time, Pragnesh, son of complainant tried to save
complainant, but the accused No.3 also inflicted stick blows on him
and caused injuries to them, and the accused Nos.2 & 4 caught hair of
complainant's wife and gave kick and fist blows, and intentionally
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
caused hurt to them. Thereafter, all the accused persons went away
from there by giving abuses. Therefore, complaint was filed and an
offence was registered as II.C.R.No.7/2008 at Jambusar Police Station,
against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections
323, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections
3(1) (10) of the Atrocity Act.
2.2 After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against respondents accused before JMFC, Bharuch. As the offences
committed by respondents were absolutely triable by the Court of
Sessions, same was committed to the Sessions Court under Section
209 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, charge was framed against the respondents
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2)
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1) (10) of the
Atrocity Act, 1989. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the
charges and claimed to be tried.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
Sr.
No.
PW
No.
Name of the
Description Exhibit
Witness
1 1 Natwarbhai
Motibhai Solanki
Complainant 15
2 2 Jayaben
Natwarbhai Solanki
Wife of the Complainant
and Victim Lady Witness
19
3 3 Pragnesh
Natwarbhai Solanki
Son of Complainant and
Victim Witness
20
4 4 Mahammad
zubair Abdulla
Diwan
Panch Witness of the
panchnama regarding the
place of offence
21
5 5 Babubhai
Dhulabhai
Panch Witness of the
Panchnama drawn
regarding physical
22
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
condition of Accused No. 3,
Kalidas Bhikhabhai and
seizure of the stick
produced by him
6 6 Jayeshkumar
Ramanlal Kapadia
Circle Inspector who
prepared the map of the
place of offence
24
7 7 Deepakkumar
Manilal
Panch Witness of the
panchnama regarding the
place of offence
27
8 8 Shakir Gulam
Shabbir Malek
Panch Witness of the
Panchnama drawn
regarding physical
condition of Accused No. 1
and seizure of the stick
produced by Accused No. 1
28
9 9 Dr. Ramdev
Baluram
The Medical Officer who
provided treatment to PW
Nos. 1, 2, and 3
30
10 10 Maganbhai
Bhagwanbhai
Panch Witness of the
Panchnama drawn
regarding physical
condition of Accused No. 3,
Kalidas Bhikhabhai and
seizure of the stick
produced by him
39
11 11 Majidbhai
Mohammad Bhai
Panch Witness of the
Panchnama drawn
regarding physical
condition of Accused No. 1
and seizure of the stick
produced by Accused No. 1
40
12 12 PSI Pratapsinh
Dashrathsinh
Parmar
Police Officer who
recorded the complaint of
the Complainant
41
13 13 Asst. Head
Constable
Ranjitsinh
Bhagwansinh
P.S.O. 43
14 14 Dy.S.P. Kantibhai
Kikabhai Rathod
Investigating Officer who
investigated the offence
46
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
following documentary evidence:-
Sr. No. Description Exhibit
1 Complaint 16
2 Panchnama regarding the physical condition of
Accused No. 2, Manjulaben
18
3 Office copy of the yadi written by PW No. 14 to
the Mamlatdar, Jambusar, for preparing the map
of the place of offence
25
4 Map of the place of offence 26
5 Caste Certificate of the Complainant 29
6 Yadi written by PW No. 12 to the Medical Officer
for treatment of the Complainant and PW Nos. 2
and 3
31
7 Medical Case Papers of the Complainant
Natwarbhai Motibhai
33
8 M.L.C. Certificate of Complainant Natwarbhai
Motibhai
34
9 Medical Case Papers of PW No. 3-Pragnesh
Natwarbhai
35
10 M.L.C. Certificate of PW No. 3- Pragnesh
Natwarbhai
36
11 Medical Case Papers of PW No. 2- Jayaben
Natwarbhai
37
12 M.L.C. Certificate of PW No. 2- Jayaben
Natwarbhai
38
13 Extract of the Entry No. 14 made in the Station
Diary of Jambusar Police Station by PW No. 13
based on the Complainant's complaint
44
14 Yadi written by PW No. 13 regarding handing over
the investigation of the offence against the
accused to PW No. 14
45
15 Order passed by the Superintendent of Police,
Bharuch, appointing PW No. 14 to investigate the
offence against the accused
47
16 Panchnama of the place of offence 48
17 Panchnama regarding the physical condition of
Accused No. 1 and seizure of the stick upon
produced voluntarily by him
49
18 Panchnama regarding the physical condition of 50
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
Accused No. 3 and seizure of the stick upon
produced voluntarily by him
5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that they are innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this Appeal. This Court on 19.01.2010 admitted the appeal and issued
bailable warrant to the respondents in sum of Rs.5,000/-.
7.1 At the outset, it may be noted that during the pendency of the
present proceedings, respondent No.4 – Maniben Kalidasbhai Maachi
expired on 29.05.2022 and, therefore, the appeal stands abated qua
respondent No.4. The death certificate to that effect is produced on
record.
7.2 It may also be noted that this Court vide order dated
19.12.2024 granted permission to join the original complainant –
Natvarbhai Motibhai Solanki as party respondent to the present
proceedings, however, he could not be joined as party respondent as
he expired on 19.09.2010 before framing of charge. The death
certificate is produced on record.
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
8. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mrs.Rekha Kapadia,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents – accused at length.
9. Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted that the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary
to law and evidence on record and against the principles of justice,
and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. She
has submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that
the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by
leading cogent and material evidence. She has submitted that the
trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well the
documentary evidence led by the prosecution in its true and proper
spirit while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
She has submitted that the trial Court has not considered the fact that
the respondents accused with an intention to breach the peace gave
filthy abuses to the complainant and other witnesses and also
threatened to kill the complainant and other witnesses, thereby
committing offence punishable under the provisions of the IPC. She
has submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the
evidence of the complainant, who has fully supported the case of the
prosecution and discarded and disbelieved his evidence while coming
to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. She has submitted
that the trial Court has not considered the evidence of the injured
eye-witnesses being the wife and son of the complainant. She has
submitted that the trial Court has committed a grave error in not
considering the evidence of the doctor, who had issued injury
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
certificate and stated that such injuries were possible by stick, who
has fully supported the case of the prosecution and thus, the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal is illegal, erroneous and
unjust. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor has urged that the appeal
deserves to be allowed and the judgment and order of acquittal
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. On the other hand, Mrs.Kapadia, learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that the trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal and there is no any
illegality or any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order and,
therefore, no interference is required to be called for. She has
supported the reasonings stated by the trial Court and submitted that
the respondents have been falsely roped in the alleged offence. She
has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
levelled against the respondents before the trial Court by leading
cogent and material evidence and therefore, the appeal being
meritless deserves to be dismissed and the judgment and order of
acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone
through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court
and the oral evidence of the witnesses recorded by the trial Court.
The question arises for consideration before this Court is that,
whether the trial Court was right and justified in passing the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the
respondents or not, whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the
oral evidence led by the prosecution while passing the impugned
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
judgment and order of acquittal or not, whether the trial Court has
committed any illegality or any perversity while recording the
acquittal or not. For considering all these aspects, the evidence led by
the prosecution before the trial Court is required to be looked into
which is discussed hereunder.
12. The complainant – Natrvarbhai Motibhai Solanki PW-1 registered
FIR against the present respondents for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)
(10) of the Atrocity Act. The provisions of the aforesaid Sections are
reproduced hereunder :
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes
hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
—
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person,
intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to
break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—
And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause
the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or
to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
114. Abettor present when offence is committed.—
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be
punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for
which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment
is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act
or offence.
Section 3(1)(10) - intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
13. In order to see as to whether the ingredients of the aforesaid
sections are satisfied or not, the evidence of the witnesses being PW-
1 – Natvarbhai Motibhai Solanki - Exh.-15, PW-2 – Jayaben Natvarbhai
Solanki – Exh.-19 and PW-3 – Pragnesh Natvarbhai Solanki – Exh.-20
are required to be closely scrutinized. From the evidence of these
three witnesses, it appears that there was a prior animosity between
two families and one criminal case was also pending between them.
From the evidence of PW-1 Natvarbhai, it appears that he was in a
habit of filing such false complaints and every time he used to get
compensation from the social welfare department and also while
settling the dispute, he used to get some compensation from the
accused persons. PW-9 – Dr. Ramdev Baluram – Exh.-30, who at that
relevant point of time, was a Medical Officer at Referal Hospital &
C.H.C., Jambusar, had examined all the three witnesses being PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-3, who were brought to Referal Hospital with police
yaadi. From the bare perusal of the evidence of this witness, it
appears that the incident narrated by the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is not
supported by the evidence of this doctor. It is also pertinent to note
herein that the incident had happened at the door step of the
complainant, which was not a public place within public view as
alleged by the complainant and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala reported
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
in AIR 2024 SC 4557 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has explained
the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, which is
reiterated and clarified in the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Gunjan @ Girija Kumari Vs. State (Nct Of
Delhi) reported in 2026 (0) INSC 468 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has clarified that only when abusive words are uttered in a
public place within public view, with an intention of insulting a
particular person on the basis of his community, then under that
circumstance only it attracts the ingredients of Section 3(1)(10) of the
Atrocity Act and for establishing the commission of the offence, the
prosecution must lead prima facie satisfactory, cogent, and material
evidence to prove its case and herein the present case, the evidence
is completely silent on that aspect and no other witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution, on the contrary, the case is put
forward that the respondent No.2 – Manjulaben, wife of respondent
No.1, who sustained injury, was about to register an FIR against the
present complainant and his family members as a counter blast. It
appears that the present offence is registered by the Investigating
Officer.
14. Looking to the facts of the present case and the evidence of the
witnesses being PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it is clearly established that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the
respondents and under such circumstances, the trial Court after
appreciating the evidence of the witnesses has dealt with the
depositions of the witnesses in paras 8 to 20 of the impugned
judgment. The trial Court has also recorded that the complainant has
registered many complaints under the provisions of the Atrocity Act
and it was admitted by the complainant that he had received
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
compensation from the social welfare department in respect of the
offence registered by him. Though the complainant was serving as a
teacher and was a socially responsible person in the society, he was
indulging in the filing of such complaints, which is nothing but, misuse
of the provisions of the Act. The trial Court has recorded the findings
as to why the order of acquittal has to be passed in favour of the
present respondents and after going through the same and on perusal
of the evidence recorded by the trial Court, I do not find any illegality
or any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court.
15. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption
of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
16. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while
exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which he is charged.
17. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43 , which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another , reported in
[ 2022] 3 SCC 471 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated
the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in
paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble
Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40 . For the purpose of
considering the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, it is
worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Talari Naresh Vs. State of Telangana , reported in
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
2026 (0) INSC 486 and in case of Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama
Vs. State of U.P. , reported in 2025 (16) JT 81 . Hence, I am in
complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
18. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169 , wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa
and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of
the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a
judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:
“42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the evidence before it
may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact
and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very
strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive
powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential
for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for
discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able
to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It
was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it
would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a
contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is
absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject
their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of
the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this
light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing
with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered
judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the
benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
19. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
20. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1447/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
21. In view of the above, t h e present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is
hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 26 02:31:12 IST 2026