STATE OF GUJARAT vs BIBIBEN W/O SUMAR ABDULBHAI (CASE IS ABATED ON HER DEMISE)

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1404 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==================================================
Yes No
Approved for Reporting
✔
==================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BIBIBEN W/O SUMAR ABDULBHAI (CASE IS ABATED ON HER DEMISE) & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4,5
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR SADIK A ANSARI(5388) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 03/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. It is highly unfortunate that, in the present case, neither the
Investigating Officer exercised due care and diligence during the
course of the investigation, nor were the necessary documentary
evidence collected or the statements of the witnesses residing in the
vicinity recorded. Furthermore, the Trial Court also failed to exercise
due care and caution while conducting the trial. Consequently, the
present case is one of complete absence of evidence.
2. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) against the judgment
and order dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Dhoraji (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”)
in Sessions Case No.64 of 2006, whereby the trial Court has acquitted
the original accused (respondents herein) from the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for short).
3. Short facts of the prosecution case are that, the complainant
Fatmaben Ismailbhai had given the complaint before Incharge
Divisional Police Officer, Jetpur against the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 498Α, 306, read with Section 114 of the
Indian Penal Code to the effect that, marriage of her daughter viz.
Shahin took place with Rafikbhai Jumabhai and after execution of
divorce with him, her marriage took place with Satar Sumar of village
Dhoraji six months prior to the alleged incident. After marriage, she
was staying in a joint family with her in-laws i.e. mother-in-law, sister-
in-law, brother-in-law, elder brother-in-law, elder sister-in-law. That,
her husband and brother-in-law were doing business of carpenter.
Fifteen days prior to the incident, since there was marriage of relative
of complainant, she along with her husband had gone to attend the
marriage and thereafter, she returned to Dhoraji. Just before eight
days of the complaint, her daughter had come to her with her
husband and her husband had gone alone keeping her daughter at
her parental i.e. complainant's house. At that time, her daughter
complained to complainant that her mother-in-law, Bibiben, Nanand
Jetunben, Zarinaben, Derani Kulsamben and Diyar Gafarbhai all these
persons used to harass her mentally and physically and they were not
keeping her well. They used to taunt her saying that "Amare Joiti
Nathi, Tu Abhagni Choo" and as such they ill-treated her daughter. On
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
last Monday, the husband of her daughter had come to parental
house of deceased and assured that now nobody would harass Shahin
and since assurance was given, the complainant persuaded her
daughter and sent her back to her matrimonial house.
3.1 That on 12.06.2011, while the complainant was present at her
house, at about 7.45 hours, Aminabai, Aunt of Shahin, resident of
Bhavnagar, had come to the complainant and told her that she
received phone call from matrimonial house of Shahin informing that
Shahin got burnt injuries and she was taken to Junagadh Hospital. On
receiving such information, the complainant along with her elder
daughter Ruksana, her son Altaf, her brother-in-law Iqbalbhai,
Ibrahimbhai had gone from Bhavnagar at about 3 O'clock at night to
Junagadh Civil Hospital and reached there at about 9 O'clock in the
morning, where they found that daughter of the complainant was
admitted in burns ward and treatment was going on. The complainant
met her daughter alone and in turn she disclosed that in her
matrimonial house, her in-laws again started harassing her for one or
another reason and they were giving her foul abuses and started
taunting her saying that, "Amare Joiti Nathi" and "Tu Jyarthi Aavi
Tyarthi Amara Gharma Padti Chhe, Tu Abhagni Choo, Tu Mari Jaa",
which hurt her much and therefore, she took an extreme step and set
herself on fire pouring kerosene on herself. Thereafter, mother of the
complainant gave complaint before Dhoraji Police Station being I-
C.R.No.85 of 2001.
3.2 On these facts, complaint was filed with Dhoraji Police Station
and on filing of the complaint, Investigating Officer started
investigation recording statements of relevant witnesses and drawing
necessary panchnamas like place of offence. Police also obtained Yadi
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
sent to Executive Magistrate, and PM report of deceased.
3.3 At the end of the investigation, 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 him before the Court of Law. At the end of
investigation, as the police found that there are ample evidences and
sufficient materials against the accused respondents, charge sheet
was prepared and submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Dhoraji where the case was registered. Since the case was
exclusively sessions triable, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Dhoraji committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 10.05.2006 as
per section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3.4 After verifying whether the accused had been given necessary
police papers or not or whether they wanted to engage private lawyer
or not, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot at Dhoraji framed
charges against the accused persons vide Exh.-23 and the same was
read over and explained over to the accused persons and the pleas of
the accused were recorded wherein the accused denied having
committed any offence and claimed to be tried.
3.5 In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused
persons, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and also
produced as many as 29 documentary evidence on record of the case.
4. 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.
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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 against them.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
7. Heard Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr. Sadik A. Ansari, learned
counsel for the respondents – accused at length.
7.1 At the outset, it may be noted that the respondent No.1 –
Bibiben W/o. Sumar Abdulbhai, died during the pendency of the trial,
and the proceedings stood abated qua respondent No.1. Accordingly,
the present appeal is proceeded with qua respondent Nos.2 to 5.
8. 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
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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.
8.1 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.
9. Per contra, Mr. Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents –
accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has
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
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
also submitted that there is not an iota of evidence connecting the
accused with the alleged crime in question. He has therefore, prayed
to confirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the present appeal.
10. 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.
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.
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 deceased daughter of the complainant, namely, Shahinabanu,
was earlier married to one Rafik. However, within one month of the
marriage, she obtained a divorce. Thereafter, she was married to
Satar, the son of respondent No. 1, about six months prior to the
alleged incident. After her marriage with Satar, Shahinbanu was
residing with her in-laws in a joint family at Dhoraji, where her
mother-in-law, sisters-in-law, and brother-in-law were also residing
together. On 12.06.2001, at about 19:10 hours, Shahinabanu
allegedly committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
ignited herself. She was immediately taken to the nearby hospital of
Dr. Mankadiya at Dhoraji. However, considering the seriousness of her
condition, she was thereafter shifted to the Civil Hospital, Junagadh.
Subsequently, on 16.06.2001, she succumbed to her injuries and died.
It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant, being
the mother of the deceased Shahinabanu, was immediately informed
about the unfortunate incident by one of her relatives residing at
Bhavnagar at about 19:45 hours. Upon receiving the information, the
complainant, along with her family members, reached Dhoraji. On the
next day, i.e., on 13.06.2001, she lodged an FIR against the
respondents before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jetpur
Division, Jetpur Camp at Junagadh, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said FIR,
the complainant made allegations against the mother-in-law, sisters-
in-law, brother-in-law, and the wife of the brother-in-law (Jethani) of
the deceased. However, she did not make any allegation against
Satar, the husband of the deceased.
12. Now, upon perusal of the Record and Proceedings, it appears
that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) has not investigated the offence in
the light of the reasons and allegations made in the complaint. It
appears as if he had merely investigated the matter as though it were
an ordinary prohibition case or an offence under the Gujarat Police
Act. In the present case, the deceased, Shahinbanu, had married
Satar, son of Respondent No. 1, about six months prior to the
incident, and thereafter, she committed suicide. Considering the
serious nature of the offence, the I.O. has acted in a highly careless
and reckless manner during the course of investigation. He has failed
to collect the necessary documentary and other material evidence
relevant to the allegations made in the complaint. In particular, he did
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
not record the statement of Dr. Mankadiya, who had immediately
treated the injured/deceased Shahinbanu, nor did he collect any
documentary evidence from the said doctor regarding the treatment
administered to her. He also failed to collect the relevant medical
records and other documentary evidence from the Civil Hospital,
Junagadh, and did not record the statement of any doctor from the
Civil Hospital, Junagadh, who had treated the deceased. Furthermore,
the I.O. failed to record the statements of nearby and material
witnesses who could have thrown light on the circumstances leading
to the incident. Such lapses demonstrate a serious lack of due
diligence and a failure to conduct a fair, proper and effective
investigation into the allegations made in the complaint.
13. Similarly, the prosecution has also failed to take proper care to
examine the relevant and material witnesses. In particular, the
Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration of the
deceased Shahinbanu, has not been examined by the prosecution.
Likewise, the panch witnesses have not been examined, nor has the
doctor who had examined and treated the deceased at the earlier
point of time been examined. Unfortunately, although the prosecution
had furnished a list of witnesses containing as many as 25 witnesses,
the relevant and material witnesses necessary for establishing the
prosecution case have not been examined. Such failure on the part of
the prosecution to examine the material witnesses raises serious
doubts regarding the fairness and completeness of the prosecution
case.
14. If the document, i.e. the P.M. Note at Exh.-41, is perused, it
reveals that the post-mortem examination was carried out at Sir T.
Hospital, Bhavnagar, by Dr. D.J. Aghera on 16.06.2001. As per the said
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
P.M. Note, the deceased, Shahinbanu, was admitted to the Burns
Ward at Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar, on 14.06.2001. Prior thereto, she
was under the treatment of Dr. Mankadiya at Dhoraji and was
thereafter shifted to Civil Hospital, Junagadh, and subsequently to Sir
T. Hospital, Bhavnagar. However, none of the aforesaid doctors,
including Dr. Aghera, who conducted the post-mortem examination,
has been examined by the prosecution in the present case. If the
original document is perused further, it reveals that from 12.06.2001
to 16.06.2001, the deceased, Shahinbanu, was admitted to different
hospitals. However, the investigation papers do not disclose in which
hospitals she remained admitted, for what duration, or when she was
treated as an indoor patient. Further, no documents have been
produced before the Trial Court to establish how the injured/deceased
was taken from Junagadh to Bhavnagar. No such evidence was
collected by the Investigating Officer, nor did he collect any
documents from either the Junagadh Hospital or the Bhavnagar
Hospital, except the P.M. Note at Exh.-41.
15. The dying declaration was recorded by the Executive
Magistrate, Mr. C.P. Vyas, of Junagadh, and the said dying declaration
has been produced at Exh.-94. In the said dying declaration, the
deceased, Shahinbanu, stated before the Executive Magistrate that
while she was preparing tea, she suddenly caught fire and, as a result,
sustained burn injuries. On seeing the incident, her mother-in-law and
sisters-in-law immediately rushed to the spot and called the husband
of the deceased, who was on the ground floor. The husband
immediately came there and tried to save the deceased, Shahinbanu,
by pouring water and a wet cloth over her injured body. The deceased
did not make any allegation or raise any complaint against any of her
family members in her statement before the Executive Magistrate.
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Surprisingly, this document was accepted in evidence by the Trial
Court without examining its author, i.e. the Executive Magistrate who
had recorded the dying declaration. Even the said Executive
Magistrate was not examined by the prosecution, nor were any
documents produced in support of the Yadi allegedly sent to the
Executive Magistrate. In the absence of such evidence, several
questions remain unanswered, including whether such Yadi was
actually sent to the Executive Magistrate, at what time it was received
by him, and whether the dying declaration at Exh.-94 was recorded
pursuant to the said Yadi. These material aspects remain unexplained,
as no supporting documents were produced on record by the
prosecution.
16. Similarly, although the panchnama of the place of incident was
prepared by the Investigating Officer, none of the panch witnesses
thereto have been examined by the prosecution. Further, although
the FSL Officer had inspected the place of occurrence and collected
relevant evidence in the presence of the panch witnesses, neither the
relevant documents nor any officer from the FSL has been examined
by the prosecution, despite the fact that the names of such officers
were included in the list of witnesses. Furthermore, even the
neighbouring witnesses from Dhoraji, where the deceased,
Shahinbanu, was residing with her husband, whose names were also
referred to as witnesses, have not been examined by the prosecution.
17. Now, if the impugned judgment is perused, it appears that only
six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, including the
complainant, the mother and uncle of the deceased, two other
witnesses from the family of the deceased, Shahinbanu, and the
Investigating Officer who had investigated the offence. It appears that
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
the Investigating Officer, Mr. Hirabhai Muljibhai Parmar, who had
investigated such a serious offence, was not even competent to hold
the post of Head Constable, and yet he conducted the investigation in
a manner as though he was investigating a petty offence under the
Prohibition Act, the Gambling Act, or the Gujarat Police Act. He neither
took proper care nor collected the relevant and necessary evidence
during the course of investigation. Such serious lapses on the part of
the Investigating Officer cannot be overlooked. Therefore, if the said
Investigating Officer is still in service, it would be desirable that his
superior officer may take appropriate action in accordance with law.
18. Similarly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who
conducted the trial on behalf of the State, also appears to have acted
in a careless and negligent manner in conducting the prosecution.
Though the list of witnesses indicates that the prosecution intended to
examine as many as 25 witnesses, upon perusal of the impugned
judgment, it becomes clear that only six witnesses were examined.
Out of those six witnesses, almost all were close relatives of the
deceased, apart from the Investigating Officer. Even amongst the
close relatives of the deceased, three witnesses did not support the
case of the prosecution. Thus, the manner in which the prosecution
was conducted, despite the seriousness of the offence, reflects a
complete lack of diligence in examining material witnesses and
bringing relevant evidence on record. The investigation as well as the
conduct of the trial suffers from serious deficiencies, which have
materially affected the prosecution case.
19. The complainant, being the mother of the deceased,
Shahinbanu, was herself aware of the fact that the marriage of the
deceased, Shahinbanu, with Satar was his third marriage. However,
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
she did not disclose the true and correct facts before the Trial Court.
In her examination-in-chief, she stated that it was his second
marriage. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that Satar
had obtained a divorce from his first wife, that the deceased,
Shahinbanu, was his second wife, and that a case was pending in
respect of his third wife. Even the deceased, Shahinbanu, had
initiated proceedings against her first husband, namely Rafik Juma,
seeking maintenance and divorce, which proceedings were pending.
During the pendency of the said proceedings, she married Satar, son
of respondent No.1. Though a suggestion was put to the complainant
that, prior to her marriage with Satar, the deceased had been married
to one Ruja Faruk Valimohammad and one Raja Husen Kasam, the
complainant denied and refused to accept the said suggestion.
20. It also appears from the record that, initially, an accidental
death entry was registered at Dhoraji Police Station vide A.D. Entry
No. 148/2001 on 12.06.2001 at about 19:10 hours. The information
was given by Dr. Mankadiya to the Police Constable at Dhoraji Police
Station, on the basis of which the initial investigation was carried out
by the Police Station Officer (PSO) of Dhoraji Police Station.
Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to PW-6, the
Investigating Officer. However, the said PSO was also not examined
by the prosecution, nor were any documents relating to the said A.D.
Entry produced before the Trial Court. In the aforesaid circumstances,
and in the absence of any cogent and reliable material evidence, the
Trial Court has rightly recorded its reasons for acquitting the
respondents. From paragraphs 13 to 20 of the impugned judgment,
the Trial Court has dealt with the evidence of the witnesses, and from
paragraph 21 onwards, it has recorded detailed reasons as to why the
case of the prosecution could not be believed. The Trial Court rightly
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges
against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 306 and 107 of the IPC.
21. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent
pronouncement, for establishing an offence under Section 107 of the
IPC, there must be clinching and convincing evidence demonstrating
the existence of provocation, instigation, or intentional aid on the part
of the accused persons which led or compelled the deceased to
commit suicide. In the absence of such evidence, particularly where
the death is otherwise alleged to be unnatural, the mere fact of an
unnatural death, by itself, is not sufficient to establish the charge
under Section 306 read with Section 498-A of the IPC.
22. It is also pertinent to note that, though the deceased died within
a period of six months of her marriage and her death was unnatural,
there is no evidence to connect such unnatural death with the present
respondents or to attribute any role to them in causing or contributing
to her death. In the absence of any evidence to establish that the
respondents had, in any manner, instigated, abetted, or intentionally
aided the deceased in the commission of suicide, the essential
ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and
107 of the IPC were not established. In the absence of such material
evidence, the Trial Court was also even not able to draw any
presumption under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence
Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 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
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
any illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the impugned judgment and
order warranting interference by this Court.
23. 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.
24. 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
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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.
25. 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
agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
26. 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.
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
(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.
(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.”
27. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1404/2012 (GJHC240438682012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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.
28. 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 the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
29. 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.
30. However, considering the serious lapses on the part of PW-6,
the Investigating Officer, it is observed that, if the said Investigating
Officer is still in service, it would be desirable for his superior officer to
take appropriate action against him in accordance with law.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:24 IST 2026