STATE OF GUJARAT vs GIRISHKUMAR KANTILAL DHARANI (SONI)

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1471 of 2012
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 768 of 2012
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 479 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GIRISHKUMAR KANTILAL DHARANI (SONI) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HIMANSU M PADHYA(1611) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK

Date : 01/09/2026

COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal no. 1471 of 2012 has been preferred by the
appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated
th
30.05.2012 passed by the learned 5 Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Banaskantha-Palanpur (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial
Court”) in Sessions Case No.62 of 2011, whereby the trial Court has
acquitted the original accused (respondents herein) from the offences
punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
1.1 Whereas, Criminal Appeal no. 768 of 2012 has been preferred
by the appellant – original complainant under Section 372 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the very same judgment and
th
order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the learned 5 Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Banaskantha-Palanpur.
1.2 Criminal Revision Application No. 479 of 2012 has been
preferred by the revisioner-accused no.3 in Criminal Appeal no.1471
of 2012 under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated
th
26.06.2012 passed by the 4 Additional Session Judge, Palanpur,
Banaskantha in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2011 whereby the learned
Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment and order dated
th
01.08.2011 passed by the 6 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Palanpur.
1.3 As per the order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the Co-oridnate
Bench of this Court, both the appeals and the criminal revision
application are to be heard together. Hence, they are heard together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Short facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the
complainant – Kanaiyalal Popatlal Jehani, filed a complaint before
Palanpur City Police Station for the offences punishable under sec.306
and 114 of Indian Penal code and same has been registered as CR
No.I-169 of 2010 against the respondents-accused. That, the son of
the complainant, deceased-Upendrakumar Kanaiyalal Jehani married
accused – Jalpaben Girishbhai Soni on 29.11.2008. That, thereafter
without any reason the daughter in law of the complainant namely
Jalpaben went to her parental home and did not return back. That, on
Page 2 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
the contrary she initiated disputes with the complainant and his son.
That, when the complainant and his wife planned a religious trip, they
also invited their daughter in law. That, however, following dispute
between the parties, while the complainant was away on the
pilgrimage, a false and fabricated complaint under section 498A of the
IPC was filed against the complainant and his son, resulting in their
arrest and subsequent release on bail. That, on account of the
ongoing dispute between the parties, accused-Jalpaben and her
parents subjected the deceased to constant torture. That, on
16.06.2010, the deceased was threatened by accused-Girishkumar
Dharani and his wife- Nainaben Dharani and then on 17.6.2010, the
deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. Hence, the
aforementioned complaint was lodged by the complainant before the
Palanpur City Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The police
prepared panchnama of the scene of offence and statements of the
witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, charge
sheet was submitted into the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Palanpur.
2.1 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court vide for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being
explained it to them, the accused have denied having committed any
offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for
trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Palanpur,Banaskantha.
3. I t appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and also produced 16
documentary evidences.
4. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that they are innocent.
5. 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 them.
6. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat, Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned counsel for
the appellant – original complainant and Mr. Mihir Pathak, the learned
counsel for the appellant – revisioner at length. Though the notice
served upon the respondents-accused, who are represented through
Mr.Himanshu Padhya, the learned counsel has filed a leave note.
7. Ms. Jhaveri , 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. Jhaveri , 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. She has submitted that the trial
Court has failed to appreciate the vital pieces of documentary
evidence i.e. the statement of the deceased recorded by the
Investigating officer and the dying declaration recorded by Executive
Magistrate and the trial court has completely ignored and overlooked
Page 4 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
these important pieces of evidence while passing the impugned
judgment and order. She has further contended that the trial Court
failed to appreciate the undisputed fact that a dispute was going on
between the two families in respect of the matrimonial relationship
between the deceased and his wife and that both sides had initiated
criminal as well as civil proceedings, which are pending before the
competent court. She has submitted that accused-Jalpaben had filed
proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and had also lodged a
complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC and the provisions of the
Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his family members. In
contrast, the husband had preferred proceedings under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce from his wife wherein the
complainant and his family members were arrested and were
subsequently enlarged on bail by the competent court. She has
submitted that these facts have come on record through the evidence
of the witnesses; however, the trial Court failed to properly appreciate
the aforesaid facts while passing the impugned judgment and order
and also failed to properly appreciate the nature and extent of the
dispute between the two families in its true and proper perspective.
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.
7.1 According to Ms. Jhaveri , learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
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.
7.2 Similar contentions are raised by Mr. Dagli, learned counsel for
the appellant – original complainant and he has supported the
submissions advanced by learned APP.
8. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant-revisioner has
submitted that there were no cordial relations between the revisioner
and her in-laws. He has submitted that the revisioner was subjected
to mental and physical cruelty and was driven out of the matrimonial
home by her husband and his family members. Therefore, she
initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code read with the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which
came to be rejected by the concerned Court. He has submitted that
the said judgment was challenged before the concerned Court by
preferring an appeal, which also came to be rejected. Thereafter,
being aggrieved by the dismissal, the wife of the deceased has
preferred the present Criminal Revision Application. He has prayed to
confirm the present Criminal Revision Application.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the materials on record. On perusal of the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the
questions that arise for determination are as under:-
(1) whether the trial Court has rightly justified in passing the
judgment and order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
Page 6 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
led by the prosecution in recording the reasons.
(3) whether there is any illegality, irregularity and perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
10. On perusal of the records it appears that the deceased married
accused – Jalpaben Girishbhai Soni about two years prior to the date
of incident and during the said wedlock, she delivered a daughter,
who was aged about three to four months at the relevant time. It
appears that after the srimant ceremony of accused – Jalpaben, a
dispute arose between the deceased and his wife and his parents.
Consequently, litigation was initiated by both sides, which has been
referred to hereinabove, in the nature of civil and criminal
proceedings. After the srimant ceremony, the wife of the deceased
went to her parental home for the purpose of delivery and never
returned to her matrimonial home. Upon perusal of the evidence led
by the prosecution, it appears that the original complainant or his
family members, had not even attempted to call the wife of the
deceased nor had they brought the wife and the minor daughter of
the deceased to their home. In the meantime, proceedings were
initiated between the deceased and his wife. In this regard, as per the
evidence of the complainant, the father of the deceased, it appears
that the last occasion on which they met was on 14.04.2010 and
thereafter there was no communication between them. It also
appears from the documentary evidence that, in May 2010, the
deceased filed a civil suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
seeking divorce from his wife. The said proceedings were pending
before the concerned court. In the meantime, the wife of the
deceased also initiated proceedings against the complainant and his
family members, pursuant to which the concerned jurisdictional police
arrested them, and they were subsequently granted bail by the
Page 7 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
competent court and released on bail.
11. It appears that on 16.06.2010, the accused, being the parents
of Jalpaben, met the deceased in the market and threatened him with
dire consequences and on account of the said threat, the deceased
went to his house and consumed zinc phosphate, a poisonous
substance normally used for killing rats. He was immediately taken to
Civil Hospital, Palanpur, where he was admitted as an indoor patient.
As per the evidence of the PW-4, Dr. Tarunsinh Jagdishsinh Vaghela,
he examined the deceased in the hospital at about 2:00 p.m on
17.06.2010. As per the statement of the doctor-PW4, the deceased
died on the very same day, and his post-mortem examination was
performed at 7:45 p.m. and completed at 9:00 p.m. During his cross-
examination, PW-4 admitted before the trial Court that, at the time of
performing the post-mortem examination, first-stage rigor mortis had
already developed in the body of the deceased. Normally, rigor mortis
develops after about 12 hours from the time of death. If the said
period is considered in light of the evidence of the doctor, perhaps the
deceased had died on 16.06.2010 itself and his dead body was
brought to the hospital. However, from the evidence recorded, it
appears that, the deceased was taken to the hospital, he was in a
conscious condition and was able to give his history and a dying
declaration.
12. If the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, PW-5 – Chamanbhai
Bikhabhai Prajapati, at Exhibit 27, is considered, it appears that he did
not properly follow the prescribed norms for recording the dying
declaration, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section
32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even though the endorsement on the
dying declaration shows that the deceased was conscious at 4:10
Page 8 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
p.m. on 17.06.2010, the Executive Magistrate did not mention
whether he had obtained the signature or endorsement of the doctor.
The doctor also did not state whether any endorsement was made by
the concerned doctor who was in charge of the ward. If the time of
death stated by the doctor who performed the post-mortem
examination is considered, along with the presence of rigor mortis in
the body of the deceased, it does not match with the timing of the
recording of the dying declaration. Therefore, a serious doubt arises
as to whether the deceased was actually alive at the time when the
dying declaration was recorded and whether he was in a condition to
state any facts either before the police or before the Executive
Magistrate. The dying declaration at Exhibit 30 recorded by the
Executive Magistrate and the statement recorded by the Investigating
Officer were recorded on 17.06.2010. However, no time was
mentioned in the said statement as to when it was recorded.
13. It is an admitted fact that there was an ongoing dispute
between both the families with regard to the matrimonial relationship
between the deceased and his wife. Since Jalpaben had initiated
proceedings, the complainant along with his family members had
been arrested and subsequently released on bail. So as a counterblast
to the proceedings initiated by the accused, and after the deceased
died due to consumption of a poisonous substance, it appears that the
present complaint was filed three days after the date of the incident,
i.e., on 19.06.2010, whereas the incident had occurred on 16.06.2010.
It is clearly established from the record that the complaint was
nothing but a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the
accused. It appears that evidence also came on record that the
deceased had earlier attempted to commit suicide and this fact is
reflected in the evidence of the doctor, as linear injuries were found
Page 9 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
on the hand of the deceased at the time of the post-mortem
examination.
14. It was even suggested that the deceased was suffering from
mental illness and was undergoing treatment from Dr. Sodhan Seth
and Dr. Praveen Patel. Though the said suggestion was denied, the
facts on record suggest that the deceased was suffering from some
form of mental illness. In the circumstances, even if the evidence of
the complainant, his wife, and his son is considered, there are major
contradictions in the depositions of all three witnesses with regard to
the incident narrated by the complainant. So far as the evidence of
PW-6-Rajusinh Hirsinhji Rajput, who was allegedly an eyewitness to
the incident in which the accused are stated to have threatened the
deceased, is concerned, the same does not inspire any confidence.
The incident occurred on 16.06.2010, and the death of the deceased
occurred on 17.06.2010. However, the statement of PW-6 was
recorded on 03.08.2010, i.e., almost one and a half months after the
incident. Therefore, the statement of PW-6 was also rightly discarded
by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment and order.
15. While considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court regarding the recording of dying declarations under
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, in the case of Irfan alias Naka
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2023 SC 4129 , the
Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in respect of such dying
declarations. If the so-called dying declaration of the deceased is
considered vis-a-vis the statement of the deceased recorded by the
police, the same does not inspire any confidence and is neither
trustworthy nor truthful. The evidence of the Executive Magistrate is
also doubtful, as he did not follow the guidelines prescribed for
Page 10 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
recording a dying declaration, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and this Court from time to time. Therefore, the said piece of
evidence also did not inspire any confidence. Consequently, the trial
Court has rightly discarded the said piece of evidence and recorded
reasons for doing so. So far as the basic ingredients of Section 306
read with Section 114 of the IPC are concerned, as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 and in
the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported
in (2001) 9 SCC 618 , the basic ingredients of Sections 107 and 306
of IPC are completely absent in the present case. There is no cogent
and clinching evidence on record on the basis of which the trial Court
could hold the accused guilty of the offence. The trial court, while
recording its reasons from paragraph 11.1 onwards of the impugned
judgment, dealt with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in
detail and recorded reasons for holding that the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses was not reliable, did not inspire confidence,
and was neither truthful nor trustworthy. The trial court has recorded
the conclusion that why the evidence of prosecution is not proved
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus, in absence of
any cogent and material evidence produced by the prosecution, the
trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned
judgment in favor of 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 there is no any
illegality and infirmity found in the judgment and order.
16. 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,
Page 11 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
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.
17. 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
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.
18. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
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
agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
19. 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
Page 13 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
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.
(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.”
20. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
Page 14 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1471/2012 (GJHC240439082012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
21. 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
order of the trial Court is sustainable and both the appeals are liable
to be dismissed.
22. In view of the above, both the appeals are devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, they are 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.
23. In view of the order passed in both the present appeals, the
Criminal Revision Application no. 479 of 2012 is also dismissed
accordingly.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI
Page 15 of 15
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026