Janak Singh vs Narinder Singh Alias Ninder And Others

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
224
CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M)
Reserved on: 13.10.2026
Pronounced on: 31.10.2026
Uploaded on: 03.11.2026
Whether only the operative part of the
judgment is pronounced or the full
judgment is pronounced. Operative part/full judgment
Janak Singh … Appellant

Versus
Narinder Singh @ Ninder and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER MALIK
Present: Mr. Malhar S. Dhami, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

RAVINDER MALIK , J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment of acquittal dated 02.07.2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Sessions Case No. SC/2233/2022 arising out
of FIR No. 38 dated 03.04.2022 registered under Sections 304, 120-B of
IPC at Police Station Samrala whereby accused/respondents No.1 to 3 have
been ordered to be acquitted from the charges framed against them.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 38 dated 03.04.2022 under
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 2
Sections 304, 120-B of IPC was registered at Police Station Samrala on the
basis of the statement of the appellant/complainant to the effect that he is a
labourer and his son Sarpreet Singh has been working at Fortis Hospital,
Mundian, Ludhiana for the last ten months. He alleged that for the last ten
days, his son Sarpreet Singh was not going on his job due to foot injury
suffered by him in an accident. The appellant/complainant further stated
that on 02.04.2022 when he returned from his duty at around 7:30 PM,
Sarpreet Singh was not at home. On enquiry from his wife Sarabjit Kaur, he
was informed that his son Sarpreet Singh had gone on motorcycle. After
some time, his nephew Sikander Singh informed the appellant/complainant
that his son Sarpreet Singh was sitting with accused/respondents No.1 to 3
at the bus stand of the village and was taking intoxicants. It is further stated
that at about 9:30 PM when he went to the village bus stand in the search of
his son, then accused/respondents No.1 and 2 informed him that his son
Sarpreet Singh has been taken on a motorcycle by accused/respondent No.3
Narinder Singh @ Ninder. The appellant/complainant further stated that he
returned back and waited for his son and on the next day at around 7:30 AM
he went for his work. At about 8:00 AM, the appellant’s daughter Pradeep
Kaur told him that his son Sarpreet Singh was lying in an unconscious state
near the tomb of ‘Peers’ in the village and his motorcycle was also lying
there. It is further stated that the appellant/complainant along with his
nephew Beant Singh and Bhagwan Singh took his son Sarpreet Singh to
Civil Hospital, Samrala where the doctors declared him dead. The
appellant/complainant alleged that the death of his son, Sarpreet Singh, was
caused by accused/respondents No.1 to 3 by administering some poisonous
substance to him. Accordingly, a ruqa was sent through PHG Jagtar Singh
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 3
for registration of the FIR.
3. Investigation was commenced. Site plan was prepared.
Accused/respondents No.1 to 3 were arrested. Statements of witnesses
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Requisite memos were prepared.
After completion of investigation, a report was prepared in terms of Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. and was presented in the Court.
4. Copies of the final report/documents were supplied to the
accused/respondents No.1 to 3 free of cost in compliance with the mandate
of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala committed the
case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 04.07.2022 after observing
that the prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under
Section 304, 120-B IPC is made out against accused/respondents No.1 to 3
and that the offence under Section 304 IPC is exclusively triable by the
learned Sessions Court.
6. Charges were framed against accused/respondents No.1 to 3 and
consequently they were charge sheeted vide order dated 15.09.2022 by the
learned trial Court for commission of offences punishable under Sections
304 and 120-B of IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWI Dr. Osho
Blaggan, Medical Officer who has proved on record the affidavit Ex.PWI/A
and the postmortem report of deceased Sarpreet Singh Ex.PW1/B.
8. PW2 ASI Rajinder Singh Investigating Officer deposed regarding
recording of statement of complainant/Janak Raj and conducting
investigation. He has proved on record certain documents prepared during
investigation including the statement of complainant Ex. P1, police
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 4
proceeding Ex. P2, FIR Ex.P3, inquest report Ex.P4, statements u/s 175
Cr.P.C. Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, memo of receipt of dead body Ex.P7, site plan
Ex.P8, arrest memos of accused Ex. P9 to Ex.P11, personal search memos
Ex.P12 to Ex.P4 and Viscera report Ex.PX. PW7 HC Baljinder Singh also
deposed on the similar lines as that of ASI Rajinder Singh.
9. PW4 ASI Kans Raj deposed regarding deposit of case property with
him which he had further sent to Chemical Examiner, Kharar through HC
Baljinder Singh. PW6 Dr. Navdeep Singh proved on record the admission
record Ex.PW6/A, OPD slip Ex PW6/B, bed head ticket Ex.PW6/C and
CPR notes Ex.PW6/D.
10. PW5 Janak Raj complainant deposed that he is working as labourer.
He has three children and eldest amongst them was Sarpreet Singh and
other two daughters are younger. His son Sarpreet Singh was working in
Fortis Hospital, Mundian, Ludhiana, for last ten months before his death.
He could not go on his duty as he sustained injury on his foot. He used to
remain at home. On 02.04.2022, at about 7:30 PM, when PW5 Janak Raj
came back to his house then he found Sarpreet Singh was not there in the
house. Then he asked about Sarpreet Singh from his wife, who disclosed
that Sarpreet Singh had gone on motor cycle. He further deposed that his
nephew Sikander Singh son of Avtar Singh informed him that Sarpreet
Singh was accompanying Jagjeet Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, Jagjeet
Singh alias Ravi son of Pal Singh and Narinder Singh alias Ninder son of
Sarabjit Singh at bus stand, Gharkhana and they were taking some
intoxicant material. He stated that he went there and found Jagjeet Singh
son of Gurmukh Singh along with Jagjeet Singh alias Ravi son of Pal Singh
under the influence of intoxicants. He asked them about his son and they
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 5
disclosed that Narinder Singh accused had taken his son on motor cycle and
they assured that they will bring their son to the house and that he should go
back to the house. He stated that tehreafter, he came back to his house and
waited for his son but he did not return even till the next morning. PW5
Janak Raj stated that he went to work at 7:30 AM to hand over the key of
Agro godown and thereafter, he received telephone call from his daughter
Pardeep Kaur about his son lying unconscious on Peeran Di Mazar and that
his motor cycle was also lying there. Thereafter, he came to know that his
nephew Beant Singh son of Avtar Singh and Bhagwant Singh son of Jarnail
Singh went to the spot and took his son to the hospital in a car. He also
reached at Civil Hospital. Thereafter, doctors checked his son and declared
him brought dead. He further deposed that Narinder Singh used to sell
intoxicant material which was opposed by him and therefore under revenge
Narinder Singh @ Ninder got administrated intoxicant/poisonous substance
to his son along with Jagjeet Singh alias Jaggi and Jagjeet Singh alias Ravi.
He proved his statement to the police Ex. P1.
11. PW3 Sikander Singh deposed on the similar lines as PW5 Janak
Singh/complainant. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence vide
statement dated 11.12.2024.
12. The statements of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded in
which all the incriminating evidence was put to them. However, they
denied the same and pleaded their innocence. They further stated that no
offence was committed by them as alleged by the prosecution and opted to
lead evidence in their defense.
13. Thereafter, case was posted for defense evidence. However, accused
have not examined any witness in their defense and the defense evidence
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 6
was closed vide separate statement.
14. However, after considering the material available on record and
hearing the counsels for the parties, the learned trial Court vide impugned
judgment dated 02.07.2025 acquitted accused/respondents No.1 to 3 from
the charges framed against them by giving the benefit of doubt to them.
Hence, the present appeal.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has vehemently
contended that despite the prosecution having proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt, the learned trial Court has erred in extending the benefit
of doubt to accused/respondents No.1 to 3, as the administration of
intoxicant material to the deceased is duly proved from the testimony of
PW3 Sikander Singh who has stated that he saw the deceased in the
company of accused/respondents No.1 to 3, which further stands
corroborated by the statement of the appellant/complainant Janak Singh @
Jaggi PW5. He thus contended that since the deceased Sarpreet Singh was
last seen in the company of accused/respondents No.1 to 3, therefore, there
was no case for the learned trial Court to acquit accused/respondents No.1
to 3.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant further argued with
vehemence that the appellant/complainant had met accused/respondents
No.1 and 2 who had categorically told him that his son Sarpreet Singh had
gone along with accused/respondent No.3 Narinder Singh @ Ninder on his
motorcycle and on the next very day in the morning, deceased Sarpreet
Singh was found in unconscious state at Peera Di Mazar of village. It is
argued that the statement of the appellant/complainant was recorded
immediately without any delay. Learned counsel further contends that as
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 7
per the Chemical Examiner Report Ex.PX, Morphine was found present in
the body of the deceased. He has further contended that PW1 Dr. Osho
Blaggan who has conducted the post mortem of the deceased has proved
through his testimony the presence of drug or intoxicants in the body of the
deceased. Moreover, frothing was noticed by PW1 Dr. Osho Blaggan at the
time of conducting the post mortem of the deceased as is evident from the
post mortem report Ex.PW1/B which is suggestive of the drug overdose.
Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has further argued that
accused/respondents No.1 to 3 have not denied their presence with the
deceased in their defence and no plea of their absence on the date of
administration of overdose of the drug to deceased has been taken by them
in their defence.
17. He further contended that since it has been proved on record that
deceased Sarpreet Singh has died on account of drug overdose, as he was
last seen taking intoxicant material in the company of accused/respondents
No.1 to 3, which is duly established on record. Therefore, the judgment of
acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside, having
been passed by the learned trial Court on misreading and mis-appreciation
of evidence. Learned counsel has further contended that there is no material
available on record so as to establish that deceased Sarpreet Singh has
inhaled the Morphine drug. He argued, with vehemence, that there is no
evidence to support the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that
smack/Morphine can be administered/given orally as well as injected.
18. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that he is unable to
advance any arguments to show, even prima facie that the judgment under
challenge is improper, based upon mis-appreciation of evidence or suffers
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 8
from illegality, particularly when the State being the prosecuting agency
itself, chose not to file an appeal against the judgment.
19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
material available on record with their assistance.
20. T he criminal law was set into motion on the statement of the
appellant/complainant made by him to the Investigating Officer of the case
i.e., PW2 ASI Rajinder Singh who recorded the statement of the
appellant/complainant Ex. P1. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon
the testimonies of PW1 Dr. Osho Blaggan, PW5 appellant/complainant,
PW3 Sikander Singh as well as Chemical Examiner Report Ex.PX and the
post mortem report Ex.PW1/B.
21. From the perusal of the record of the case, it transpires that the whole
case of the prosecution is that death of the deceased Sarpreet Singh has
been caused by accused/respondent No.1 to 3 by administering him an
overdose of the drug i.e., Morphine. As per the testimony of PW3 Sikander
Singh, the deceased was last seen by him in the company of
accused/respondents No.1 to 3 at village bus stand, and PW3 had informed
the same to the father of the deceased i.e., PW5 Janak Singh. It is the case
of the prosecution that when appellant/complainant Janak Singh went in
search of his son Sarpreet Singh at village bus stand, he was told by
accused/respondents No.1 to 2 that he has been taken on motorcycle by
accused/respondent No.3 and it was only on the next day in the morning
that he has received a call from his daughter Pradeep Kaur that his son was
lying in an unconscious state at “Peera Di Mazar ” of the village.
22. The prosecution aims to link the accused/respondents No.1 to 3 with
the death of the deceased on the basis of the testimony of PW3 wherein he
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 9
has deposed about having last seen the deceased alive in the company of the
respondent accused No. 1 to 3. However, the application of the last seen
theory finds its relevancy only when the other material on record is
consonant with the fact to be proved by its application. Reference in this
regard can be made to the decision passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
“Sahadevan and Another versus State of Tamil Nadu” 2012 (6) SCC 403
wherein it has been held as thus-
“31. With the development of law, the theory of last seen has
become a definite tool in the hands of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused. This concept is also accepted
in various judgments of this Court. The Court has taken the
consistent view that where the only circumstantial evidence taken
resort to by the prosecution is that the accused and deceased
were last seen together, it may raise suspicion but it is not
independently sufficient to lead to a finding of guilt. In Arjun
Marik v. State of Bihar, [1994 Supp.(2) SCC 372], this Court
took the view that the where the appellant was alleged to have
gone to the house of one Sitaram in the evening of 19th July,
1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased
Sitaram, the evidence was very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it
was accepted that they were there, it would, at best, amount to be
the evidence of the appellants having been last seen together
with the deceased. The Court further observed that it is settled
law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the
chain of circumstances to record a finding that it is consistent
only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and, therefore, no
conviction, on that basis alone, can be founded.

34. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the
chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or
could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. But
this theory should be applied while taking into consideration the
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 10
case of the prosecution in its entirety and keeping in mind the
circumstances that precede and follow the point of being so last
seen.”
23. Thus, the isolated application of the Last Seen Theory does not
establish the prosecution’s case against the respondent accused and the
same has to be seen with other material produced on record by the
prosecution.
24. It is noticed by us from the record that initially the
appellant/complainant PW5 Janak Singh in his statement before the police
Ex. P1 has stated that accused/respondents No.1 to 3 had given some
poisonous substance to his deceased son Sarpreet Singh as
accused/respondent No.3 Narinder Singh @ Ninder was nursing grudge
against him. However, as per the post mortem report Ex.PW1/B, no
poisonous substance was found in the body of the deceased Sarpreet Singh.
Moreover, in the medical evidence the presence of Morphine is reflected in
the body of the deceased which suggests the consumption of the intoxicant
material. Further, it has also come on record that deceased Sarpreet Singh
was brought to the hospital in an unconscious state and he died during
treatment within a period of 15/20 minutes after his admission in the
hospital. The prosecution has not produced any material on record which
could suggest that the deceased was not taking drugs. The medical record
Ex.PW6/C, rather, shows that deceased Sarpreet Singh had inhaled smack
and there is no evidence on record suggestive of the fact that smack was
given to deceased by accused/respondents No.1 to 3 forcibly. In the absence
of any such evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly
concluded that deceased Sarpreet Singh was regularly taking intoxicant
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 11
material/drugs and was very much aware of the fact as to how much
quantity of the drug was sufficient for him. Though, the learned trial Court
has observed that accused/respondents No.1 to 3, at the most, had supplied
the intoxicant material to the deceased, however, we are unable to agree
even with these findings of the learned trial Court for the reason that the
prosecution has not been able to show any cogent evidence that
accused/respondents No.1 to 3 had supplied the intoxicant material to the
deceased which led to his death. There is no evidence on record to show
that accused/respondents No.1 to 3 were drug paddlers or suppliers of
drugs and were involved in the smuggling of drugs in the village. Since the
prosecution has failed to connect accused/respondents No.1 to 3 with the
death of the deceased Sarpreet Singh in any manner, therefore, the learned
trial Court has rightly extended them the benefit of doubt while acquitting
them from the charges framed against them.
25. Further, a perusal of the medical evidence brought on record reveals
that deceased Sarpreet Singh was admitted in the hospital as a case of drug
overdose as mentioned in Ex.PW6/A. The deceased was initially diagnosed
to be a patient of drug overdose with symptoms of sudden unconsciousness
and shortness of breath. The Chemical Examiner Report Ex. PX clearly
reveals the presence of Morphine in various organs of the body of the
deceased. The medical record of the Civil Hospital, Samrala Ex. PW6/C
also reveals it to be case of smack inhalation. The presence of white froth
in both the nostrils of the deceased, as transpires from the report of post
mortem Ex.PW1/B leads to the only logical conclusion that the deceased
Sarpreet Singh had died on account of overdose of the intoxicant
material/smack as he had consumed such quantity of the material which
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 12
was far more than his capacity to endure. It has also come in the testimony
of PW1 Dr. Osho Blaggan that the death of the deceased had been caused
due to aspiration of food particles being present in trachea and larynx and
the condition of the heart which casts a doubt as to the real cause of death
of the accused. In absence of any conclusive evidence to link the
respondents/accused to the cause of death of the deceased, it cannot be said
that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the guilt of the respondents
accused in light of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence as
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of the case titled
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: -
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be
said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may
be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is
not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be
proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not
merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental
distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should
exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5)
there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 13
the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.”
26. Similarly, in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala
2024 (10) SCC 813, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the basic
established principles which need to be taken as a guide for the Courts in
cases of circumstantial evidence. In Paras 16 to 18 thereof, it was held as
follows: -
“16. Thus, these basic established principles can be summarized in
the following terms that the chain of events needs to be so established
that the court has no option but to come to one and only one
conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused person. If an iota of doubt
creeps in at any stage in the sequence of events, the benefit thereof
should flow to the accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of the
fact that it is very strong, cannot be a substitute for a proof. The chain
of circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one
conclusion that is the guilt of the accused.
17. Even in the case of a conviction where in an appeal the chain of
evidence is found to be not complete or the courts could reach to any
another hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, the accused
person must be given the benefit of doubt which obviously would lead
to his acquittal. Meaning thereby, when there is a missing link, a
finding of guilt cannot be recorded.
18. In other words, the onus on the prosecution is to produce
such evidence which conclusively establishes the truth and the
only truth with regard to guilt of an accused for the charges
framed against him or her, and such evidence should establish a
chain of events so complete as to not leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
accused."
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 14
27. Taking into account the testimonies of PW3 Sikander Singh and PW5
Janak Singh, the medical evidence in the form of the post mortem report Ex.
PW1/B, the Chemical Examination Report Ex. PX as well as the testimony of
PW1 Dr. Osho, what has only been sufficiently established is that the deceased
was last seen consuming intoxicating substance alongwith the respondent
accused 1 to 3 and thereafter owing to an overdose of the intoxicating
substance, he lost his life. It is unreasonable and illogical in such case to
conclusively attribute the said occurrence to the accused/respondents No.1 to
3 and thus a conviction in their favor is not warranted. Hence, we are of the
considered view that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial court
does not require any judicial interference by this court.
28. Where a judgment of acquittal has been recorded by the trial Court,
the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused/respondents No.1 to 3
becomes further strengthened so as to give rise to a double presumption of
innocence in his favour. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “ Raj Pal Singh v.
Rajveer” 2026(1) RCR(Criminal) 177 highlighting the principle of double
presumption of innocence in cases of acquittal has held that in case where two
views are apparent from the evidences available, the appellate court should
avoid interference if one view has been taken in favour of the accused. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus:
“ 9.2 It is a well-settled principle enunciated by series of
judgments of this Court that there must exist "substantial and
compelling reasons" to upset the acquittal. Once the court
acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence is reinforced.
Thereafter, the interference by the appellate court would be
minimal and has to be guided by strong and cogent reasons.
Reversal of acquittal should not be a matter of course just
because the other view is considered to be possible by the
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 15
appellate court. Even when the appellate court re-appreciates
the evidence while dealing with the judgment and order of
acquittal, the innocence attributed to the accused acquitted from
the charges of offences would be a weighty rebuttable factor.
9.4 In Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, after
elaborate discussion as to how the appellate court should
approach the order of acquittal while exercising appellate
jurisdiction, certain principles regarding the powers of the
appellate court to be exercised against an order of acquittal,
were laid down, "(i) An appellate court has full power to review,
re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order
of acquittal is founded. (ii) 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.
(iii) 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 emphasise 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. (iv) 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. (v) If two reasonable
conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record,
the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-225-2025 (O&M) 16
recorded by the trial court."
29. Since the learned trial Court has given well-reasoned findings on the
basis of the material available on record and produced by the prosecution during
trial, we do not find any illegality, impropriety, perversity or misappreciation of
evidence in the findings recorded and conclusions drawn by learned trial court.
The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed .
30. The judgment of acquittal dated 02.07.2025 passed by passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana passed in Sessions Case No.
SC/2233/2022 arising out of FIR No. 38 dated 03.04.2022 registered under
Sections 304, 120-B of IPC at Police Station Samrala, thereby acquitting
accused/respondents No.1 to 3, is hereby affirmed .

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ) (RAVINDER MALIK )
JUDGE JUDGE


31.10.2026
sapna adhikari
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether reportable : Yes No
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.11.03 19.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document