STATE OF GUJARAT vs VIJAYBHAI @ RAMESHBHAI MANUBHAI @ VAGHJIBHAI ZINZUVADIA

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1576 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==================================================
Yes No
Approved for Reporting
✔
==================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VIJAYBHAI @ RAMESHBHAI MANUBHAI @ VAGHJIBHAI ZINZUVADIA & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR YOGIN A BHAMBHANI(6444) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 01/09/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) against the judgment
th
and order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned 5 Additional
Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial
Court”) in Sessions Case No.74 of 2011, whereby the trial Court has
acquitted the original accused (respondents herein) from the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for short).
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant
Bhupatbhai Mohanbhai Patadia Koli had given complaint on
25.08.2010 before Kalavad Police Station to the effect that on
24.8.2010, at about 11 O'clock the accused No.1 under the pretext of
getting married, kidnapped his daughter Nituben aged about 17 years
under the guardianship of the complainant on his motor cycle Hero
Honda and accused No.2 helped the accused No.1 in commission of
offence and allowed him to hide with daughter of the complainant in
safe place and as such both the accused have committed offences
under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
2.2 On these facts, complaint was filed by the complainant with
Kalavad Police Station which was registered being I-C.R.No.68 of 2010
and on filing of the complaint, Investigating Officer started
investigation recording statements of relevant witnesses and drawing
necessary panchnamas like place of offence, recovery of cloths etc.
2.3 At the end of the investigation, as soon as the Investigating
Officer received clothes of accused worn at the time of incident,
muddamal from FSL, treatment certificate of prosecutrix, and FSL
report and as soon as the Investigating Officer found that there are
ample evidences and sufficient materials against the accused
persons, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused and produced
them before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalavad. At the end of
investigation, as the police found that there are ample evidences and
sufficient materials against the accused respondent, the charge sheet
was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalavad.
2.4 After verifying whether the accused had been given necessary
Page 2 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
police papers or not or whether they wanted to engage private lawyer
or not, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalavad committed the case to
the Court of Sessions as per section 209 of Cr.P.C. as the case was
exclusively sessions triable.
2.5 The Competent Court on production of accused respondent
after verifying whether the accused had been given necessary police
papers or not framed charges against the accused vide Exh.4 and the
same was read over and explained over to the accused and pleas of
accused were also recorded vide Exh.5 and 6 wherein the accused
denied having committed any offence and claimed to be tried.
2.6 In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused
persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and
also produced 25 documentary evidence on record of the case.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
6. Heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.Yogin A. Bhambhani, learned
counsel for the respondents – accused at length.
7. Ms.Bhatt , learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which are
narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the
prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary
evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence,
has assailed the impugned judgment and order and submitted that
the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence
connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper
perspective and even the prosecution has been able to prove the
charges levelled against the accused. While referring to the evidence
of the witnesses and the material collected against the accused,
Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
prosecution has established the case against the accused by
examining the witnesses, who have supported the case of the
prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and disbelieved
the evidence of these witnesses. She has submitted that the
witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, however,
the trial Court has not appreciated the same and passed the judgment
and order of acquittal which is illegal and unjust. She has submitted
that it is settled legal position that the evidence of a single witness is
sufficient for conviction if the same is reliable and trustworthy and in
the present case, though the evidence of all the witnesses are reliable
and trustworthy, without any cogent reason, the trial Court has
disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the witnesses.
Page 4 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
7.1 Ms. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted
that the Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the victim girl
was not a major but a minor, and therefore, even her consent was
irrelevant for the purpose of the alleged offence. However, without
properly considering this material aspect, the Trial Court passed the
impugned judgment and order, whereby the respondents came to be
acquitted of the charges levelled against them. She has further
submitted that respondent No.1, being fully aware of the fact that the
victim girl was a minor, kidnapped the daughter of the complainant
and remained with her for more than six months, during which period
they visited different places. Under such circumstances, according to
the learned APP, the prosecution had proved the charges against the
respondents beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Trial Court failed
to properly appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper
perspective. She has further submitted that the prosecution proved
the age of the victim girl through the deposition of PW-13, Dr.
Diptiben Chaturbhai Parmar, at Exh.-40, wherein it was stated that the
victim girl was aged between 16½ and 17 years. The Trial Court,
however, failed to properly appreciate this material piece of evidence
and, thereby, committed a serious error in appreciating the testimony
of the said witness while recording the acquittal in favour of the
respondents. According to Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and
ought to have imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow
the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal.
8. Per contra, Mr.Bhambhani, learned counsel for the respondents
– accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and
fact in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them.
He has submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged against
the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as the complainant
has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. He has
also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to connect the
accused with the alleged crime in question. He has submitted that the
respondent No.1 who was in relation with the victim i.e. daughter of
the complainant and it was within the knowledge of the complainant
and the victim herself had left the house of the complainant at her
own wish and will and the respondent No.1 had not forcefully
kidnapped or abducted the victim girl as provided under the
provisions of Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. He has submitted that
the victim girl had stayed together with the respondent No.1 for more
than six months and visited many places and during that period, the
victim girl had not made any complaint with regard to forcefully
kidnapped or abduction at the hands of the respondent No.1.
8.1 Mr.Bhambhani, learned counsel has further submitted that,
before the doctor, the victim herself had given the history, wherein
she had stated all the relevant facts. In view of the said evidence, the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the
respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366
of the IPC. On the contrary, when the police arrested the accused and
took the victim girl into their custody, they asked her whether she
was willing to go to her parental home. At that time, she refused to
accompany her father, i.e., the complainant. Consequently, the police
sent her to Vikasgruh. Thereafter, after about 3–4 days, she returned
to her parental home. He has further submitted that the evidence of
Page 6 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
the witnesses also reveals that, after the said incident, the victim girl
was married elsewhere. Therefore, in the circumstances, the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondents
beyond reasonable doubt. Mr.Bhambhani, learned counsel has
therefore, prayed to confirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the
present appeal.
9. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as
under:-
(1) whether the trial Court is justified in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
led by the prosecution in recording the reasons.
(3) whether there is any illegality, irregularity or any perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
10. 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.
It is necessary to first examine the facts of the case as adhered by the
appellant before the trial Court. It is the case of the prosecution that
the daughter of PW-1, the complainant, was abducted by respondent
No.1 on 24.08.2010 at about 11:00 hours. It is alleged that, at the
relevant time, the complainant and his wife had gone to village Und
Khijadiya on the occasion of Rakshabandhan, while their daughter was
alone at village Kalavad. During their absence, respondent No.1
allegedly abducted the minor daughter of the complainant from
Page 7 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
village Kalavad. The complainant was informed about the incident by
his son, whereupon he lodged the complaint.
11. In light of the aforesaid facts, it appears that the complainant
had lodged the case against respondent No.1, alleging that he had
forcibly abducted his daughter. However, no specific role was
attributed to respondent No.2; nevertheless, he was arraigned as an
accused merely on the ground that he was the father of respondent
No.1. If the provisions of Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, under which
the offence was registered, are examined, they read as under :
363. Punishment for kidnapping.—
Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her
marriage, etc.—
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be
compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to
marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced
or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will
be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of
criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority
or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from
any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that
she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another
person shall be punishable as aforesaid.
12. From the evidence of PW-1, the father of the victim girl, and
PW-2, the mother of the victim girl, particularly from their cross-
examination, it emerges that even the information allegedly conveyed
by their son, PW-3 Kamlesh Bhupatbhai, who had made a telephone
Page 8 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
call to the complainant at Village Und Khijadiya, is not corroborated
by the evidence of PW-3 himself. Further, the information allegedly
received from PW-3 through PW-5 is also not supported by the
evidence on record. PW-5 had allegedly seen the victim girl going with
respondent No. 1 while sitting on a motorcycle; however, she neither
made any attempt to stop the motorcycle nor raised any alarm or
shouted for help at that time. In light of the evidence of PW-5, the
prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the respondents.
13. So far as the evidence of PW-6 to PW-10 is concerned, none of
these witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution, and no
incriminating material has been elicited from their evidence against
the respondents. Further, from the evidence of PW-11 and PW-13, it
emerges that the description given by the victim girl before PW-13,
Dr. Diptiben Chatrubhai Parmar, does not disclose any fact to
establish that respondent No. 1 had forcibly kidnapped or abducted
the victim girl. Even the victim girl, while deposing before the Trial
Court, has not stated anything to establish that she was forcibly
kidnapped or abducted. On the contrary, from the evidence of the
victim girl, it emerges that when the police arrested respondent No. 1
and asked her to return to her parental home, she refused to do so,
and therefore, she was sent to Vikasgruh. Thus, considering the
evidence on record as well as the relevant provisions of law, there is
no material evidence produced by the prosecution to establish the
charges under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC against the
respondents, particularly against respondent No. 1.
14. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, there is not an iota of
evidence to implicate or connect him with the crime in question. No
specific role has been attributed to him in the course of the evidence
Page 9 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
recorded before the Trial Court. Further, considering the facts of the
case and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, material
omissions and contradictions have been brought on record through
the deposition of the Investigating Officer, which establish that the
facts stated by the witnesses before the Trial Court were not stated by
them before the police at the time of recording their statements. Even
during the course of investigation, the police did not find any
sufficient material connecting the respondents with the alleged
offence; nevertheless, a charge-sheet came to be filed against them.
Thus, upon considering the relevant facts and the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons in
paragraphs 9 to 13 and, in paragraph 14, has recorded its conclusion
that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges against
the respondents. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal.
15. Way back in the year 1995, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case
of Shyam v. State of Maharashtra , reported in AIR 1995 SC
2169 , observed that, in a case of kidnapping or abduction, the
conduct of the prosecutrix is also a relevant circumstance. If she had
an opportunity to raise an alarm, seek help, or jump from the vehicle
to protect herself, but there is no evidence to show that she made any
such attempt or raised any alarm, the prosecution case of kidnapping
or abduction may not be said to have been established beyond
reasonable doubt. In the absence of such evidence, the culpability of
Respondent No. 1 cannot be said to have been proved. So far as
Respondent No. 2 is concerned, there is not even a whisper in the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses attributing any specific role to
him. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraph 3 of the said judgment,
Page 10 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
has acquitted the respondents of the charge under Section 366 of the
IPC. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the aforesaid decision, I am in complete agreement with the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court.
16. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court was referred
to and relied upon by this Court in Amratbhai Bhanjibhai Gamot v.
State of Gujarat , rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 947 of 2012 ,
wherein this Court, after considering and relying upon the aforesaid
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, acquitted the accused. In view of
the above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed
any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and
order and I do not find any illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the
impugned judgment and order warranting interference by this Court.
17. It is well settled by catena of decisions that 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.
18. 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
Page 11 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
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
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 they are charged.
19. 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. Hence, I am in complete
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
20. 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
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.
Page 13 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
(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.”
21. 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.
22. 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
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
Page 14 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1576/2012 (GJHC240439742012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
23. 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 15 of 15
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:11 IST 2026