BIPINBHAI PUNABHAI DODIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 354 of 2012
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 994 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==================================================
Yes No
Approved for Reporting
✔
==================================================
BIPINBHAI PUNABHAI DODIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVARSHI C SHAH(5545) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SAMEER H LALAKIYA FOR MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MS MEDHA N PANDYA(6171) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR ROHAN SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 27/08/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal No.354 of 2012 has been preferred by the
appellant – original complainant under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for
short) against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2012 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) (hereinafter be
referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.45 of 2008,
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused
(respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein) from the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 306, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for short) and under Sections 3
and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
1.1 Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.994 of 2012 has been preferred
by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Code’ for short) against the very same judgment and order dated
21.02.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)
in Sessions Case No.45 of 2008.
1.2 Since both these appeals arise out of the same order i.e. order
dated 21.02.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad
(Rural) in Sessions Case No.45 of 2008, they are heard analogously
and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Short facts leading to filing of these appeals are that, the
complainant Bipinbhai was serving with the Office of Superintendent
of Stamp, Gandhinagar and was having one son and one daughter in
his family. The daughter of complainant namely, Bhavna was aged
about 22 years as on date of incident and marriage of daughter
Bhavna had taken place with accused Bharatbhai Khetaria, resident of
Anand Park Society, Isanpur on 24.08.2004 by way of court marriage
as daughter Bhavna was in love with accused Bharat. That, family
members of daughter Bhavna and accused Bharat were not ready for
this marriage and they had raised objections, inspite of that, parents
of daughter Bhavna had permitted for love marriage, but parents of
accused Bharat had not permitted for love marriage. That, after her
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
marriage, daughter Bhavna was staying with husband Bharatbhai,
father-in-law Mavjibhai, mother-in-law Maniben, Jeth Ashokbhai and
Jethani Minaben in a joint family from 09.09.2004 and she had stayed
for a period of seven months with respondents and during that period,
accused Bharatbhai, father-in-law Mavjibhai, mother-in-law Maniben
and Jeth Ashokbhai were taunting her about not bringing dowry. That,
accused persons told her to bring Rs.2 lac from her parents on the
ground that father of daughter Bhavna had not incurred any
expenditure towards marriage. That, accused persons had also
demanded flat in the form of dowry and accordingly, flat bearing
No.B-4/401 was purchased by complainant, where daughter Bhavana
and her husband were staying. According to complainant,
complainant had given Rs.1 lac and Golden ornaments of about 10
Tolas to daughter Bhavna and she was staying in that flat since from
last two years, inspite of that, accused persons were giving physical
and mental torture to her on petty matters and therefore, she
committed suicide by hanging herself below the fan. Therefore,
complainant Bipinbhai lodged aforesaid complaint before Police
Inspector, Vejalpur Police Station, which was registered at C.R. No.I-
115/2008 for alleged breach of Sections 498A, 323, 306, 504, 114 of
IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of Dowery Prohibition Act and investigation
machinery was put into motion.
2.2 On the basis of aforesaid complaint, investigation was carried
out. During investigation police recorded statements of witnesses,
drawn necessary panchnama and as there was sufficient evidence
connecting accused persons with crime produced in this case, charge
sheet was filed before the Court of learned Magistrate for alleged
offence under Sections 498A, 323, 306, 504, 114 of IPC and Sections 3
and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
2.3 As the offences committed by the accused persons were
absolutely triable by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, same was
committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)
under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. and numbered as Sessions Case
No.45/2008.
2.4 Thereafter, respondents were ordered to issue with summons
and after service of summons, respondents had appeared before the
Court, wherein they have not pleaded guilty for the charges levelled
against them and claimed to be tried.
3. I t appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
(1) Dr. Rohit Chimanlal Zarivala Exh.28
(2) Bipinbhai P. Dodia, Complainant Exh.31
(3) Executive Magistrate, Laxmanbhai Keshavlal Parghi Exh.42
(4) Devjibhai Pithabhai Dodia Exh.45
(5) Govind M.Makwana Panch Exh.46
(6) Vinod K.Vora Panch Exh.49
(7) PSO, Vikramsinh K. Vaghela Exh.52
(8) Dy.S.P. M.C.Patel Exh.55
(9) ACP Shri B.R.Patel Exh.57
(10) Dy.S.P.Shri R.A.Jadeja Exh.58
(11) PSI, Punaji Kuberji Gameti Exh.59
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the
following documentary evidence:-
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
(1) Suchi Patra Exh.53
(2) Complaint Exh.33
(3) Panchnama of place of offence Exh.47
(4) P.M. Note of deceased Bhavnaben Exh.30
(5) Xerox copy of Share certificate of
deceased Bhavnaben’s flat Exh.32
(6) Panchnama of dairy and other articles
seized from the house of deceased Bhavnaben Exh.50
5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that they are innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
8. Heard Mr.Sameer H. Lalakiya, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Mr.Dipen Desai, learned counsel for the appellant – original
complainant, Mr.Rohan Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Ms.Medha N. Pandya, learned
counsel for the respondents – accused at length.
9. Learned counsel and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respective appellants have submitted the same
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and have 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. Learned counsel and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, while referring to the entire oral as well
as documentary evidence, have assailed the impugned judgment and
order and submitted that the trial Court has not taken into
consideration the evidence connecting the accused to the alleged
offence in its proper perspective and even the prosecution has been
able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. While
referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the material collected
against the accused, it is 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.
It is 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. It is 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.
9.1 The learned counsel and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respective appellants have submitted
that the prosecution has proved the ill-treatment and harassment
meted out to the deceased at the hands of the respondents, which led
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
the deceased, Bhavnaben, to commit suicide by hanging herself. It is
further submitted that, despite the prosecution having established the
said facts, the Trial Court failed to consider the same while passing
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. It is further submitted
that while recording the impugned judgment and order, the Trial
Court failed to consider an important piece of evidence, namely, the
diary written by the deceased Bhavna, from which certain extracts
were produced on record. The said writings of the deceased were not
appreciated and considered by the Trial Court in their true and proper
perspective while passing the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal and thus, the same is erroneous, illegal and unjust.
According to learned counsel and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and
ought to have imposed necessary sentence. It is therefore, prayed to
allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal.
10. Per contra, Ms.Pandya, 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.
She 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. She has
also submitted that there is not an iota of evidence connecting the
accused with the alleged crime in question. She has submitted that
the deceased Bhavna, along with her husband Bharat, was residing
separately from the other respondents-accused, who were residing at
Isanpur, which was situated approximately 10 kilometres away from
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
the place of the incident.
10.1 Ms. Pandya, learned counsel has further submitted that it has
come on record through the evidence of the witnesses that, at the
time of the incident, neither the husband nor any of his family
members was present at the place of occurrence. The husband was
informed about the incident by PW-4, namely, Devjibhai Pithabhai
Dodiya, who made a telephone call to him, pursuant to which they
immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. It is further submitted
that, by that time, the concerned jurisdictional police and the doctor
had already been informed, and the relatives of the deceased Bhavna
had also been called. In the presence of the police and the doctor, the
body of the deceased Bhavna was brought down, and upon
examination, the doctor declared her dead. Thereafter, as the death
was confirmed, the body of the deceased Bhavna was sent to L.G.
Hospital for post-mortem examination, where PW-1, Dr. Rohit
Chimanlal Zariwala, examined the body and confirmed that the cause
of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Thus, the factum and
cause of death were duly established. It is, therefore, submitted that
the Trial Court, after duly appreciating the evidence on record, has
rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
10.2 Ms. Pandya, learned counsel has further submitted that, though
the incident had occurred on 23.01.2008, the complaint was lodged
by the complainant only on 03.03.2008, i.e. after a delay of about two
months. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, no
explanation whatsoever has been rendered either by the complainant
or by PW-10, the Investigating Officer. She has submitted that it has
further emerged from the evidence of the Investigating Officer that,
when the panchnama of the place of offence and the inquest
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
panchnama were drawn in the presence of PW-4 and other relatives of
the deceased, no details, documents, or any other incriminating
material were found during the course of the investigation. This fact
has also been confirmed from the evidence of the Investigating
Officer. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the diary which
was subsequently produced before the Trial Court appears to have
been subsequently brought into existence, and even at the time of
lodging of the FIR, the said diary was not produced before the
Investigating Officer.
10.3 Ms. Pandya, learned counsel has further submitted that it is also
evident from the evidence of PW-9, ACP B.R. Patel, at Exh. 57, that
the diary and other documents, which were mainly relied upon by the
prosecution, were not seized by the Investigating Officer in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the
Cr.P.C. This fact has also been admitted by the Investigating Officer
and after considering all these aspects and the evidence on record,
the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal. She has therefore, prayed to confirm the impugned
judgment and dismiss the present appeal.
11. 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
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
12. 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. On 23.01.2008, at about 12:30 to
15:30 hours, PW-4, who was the uncle of the complainant, visited the
residence of the deceased Bhavna. When he rang the doorbell, the
door was not opened, as it was locked from inside. He therefore
immediately telephoned the complainant, namely, his nephew
Bipinbhai, and informed him that he was at Bhavna’s residence and
that, despite ringing the doorbell, she was not opening the door. The
complainant, Bipinbhai, then tried to contact Bhavna on her mobile
phone; however, she did not answer the call. Thereafter, with the
assistance of the neighbours, he attempted to gain entry into the
house from the rear side of the kitchen, with the help of children who
were present there. When the door was opened from inside, they
entered the flat and found that the deceased Bhavna had hanged
herself to a fan with saree and her dead body was lying in hanging
condition. Therefore, they immediately informed the nearest
jurisdictional police station, i.e., Vejalpur Police Station, and the police
mobile van also reached the place immediately. They also called the
doctors. When the door was opened, the dead body of Bhavna was
found inside the house in a hanging condition and therefore, the
police untied the saree with which she had allegedly committed
suicide and brought down the body of deceased Bhavna.
13. The police immediately prepared the panchnama of the place of
offence and also drew the inquest panchnama in the presence of the
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
panch witnesses, the complainant, and PW-4. Initially, the said
incident was registered as an accidental death entry, being AD Entry
No. 4 of 2008, in the station diary. The said incident was accordingly
investigated, and the initial investigation in connection with the
accidental death was conducted by PW-11, PSI Poonaji Kuberji Gamit.
Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. From the
statements initially recorded, no fact was revealed indicating that the
deceased had been subjected to any ill-treatment or harassment at
the hands of the respondents.
14. If the evidence of PW-1, Dr. Rohit, at Exh.-28 is considered, it
reveals that the deceased died due to asphyxia resulting from
strangulation. The injury found on the body of the deceased was also
caused by strangulation. Therefore, so far as the unnatural death of
the deceased, Bhavnaben, is concerned, the same stands proved by
the evidence of the said doctor.
15. Now, so far as the allegations of instigation and abetment are
concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-2,
complainant Bipinbhai, who is the father of the deceased, Bhavna. If
his evidence is carefully considered, particularly his cross-
examination, it appears that the complainant admitted before the
Trial Court that immediately after the incident, the Investigating
Officer had recorded the statements of all the concerned persons,
including the complainant and PW-4, who was the uncle of the
complainant. They were present at the place of the incident and were
among the first persons to witness the incident. However, in their
initial statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, they had not
made any allegation against the respondents regarding harassment,
ill-treatment, or any demand for dowry. It is further revealed from the
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
evidence of the complainant that the deceased, Bhavna, was residing
separately with her husband in a flat which had been purchased and
owned by the complainant in the name of the deceased, Bhavna. It is
also revealed that, for the last two years, they had been residing
separately from the other family members and in-laws. It is further
revealed that, during the four years of their wedlock, not a single
complaint was made by the complainant against the respondents
regarding any harassment, ill-treatment, or demand for dowry. When
the complainant was questioned with regard to the resolutions passed
by their community concerning marriage and other rituals to be
observed by the members of the community, he categorically denied
that he was not ready and willing to produce any such resolution. He
further stated that whatever may have been provided in such
resolution was not binding upon him. It was further suggested to the
complainant that the said flat, which was originally in the name of the
deceased, Bhavna, was subsequently transferred in the name of his
son. In fact, from the evidence on record, it is revealed that the said
flat was transferred by the complainant in the name of his son.
16. Now, if the aforesaid evidence is considered vis-à-vis the
evidence of the Investigating Officers, namely PW-8, PW-9, PW-10 and
PW-11, it is clear that they have not supported the story put forward
by the complainant with regard to the diary allegedly written by the
deceased, which was subsequently recovered by the complainant and
produced before the Investigating Officer. This fact is not supported
by the evidence of either the police witnesses or the panch witnesses.
However, the said witnesses were cross-examined by the learned
Public Prosecutor before the Trial Court. From their evidence, it is
revealed that, during the course of preparation of the panchnama,
they had minutely inspected the place of the incident and had
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
recorded the details thereof in the panchnama. At that time, no such
diary was found at the place of the incident. This fact was further
confirmed by the Investigating Officers, namely PW-9 and PW-11, who
deposed that during the course of investigation, no such diary was
found or recovered.
17. Even PW-10, Mr. R. R. Jadeja, Dy. S.P., before whom the diary
was allegedly produced, admitted before the Trial Court that no
panchnama or seizure memo was prepared in respect of the said
diary at the time it was produced before him. Further, even at the
time of lodging of the FIR, which was delayed by almost two months,
the said vital piece of evidence, as alleged by the complainant, was
neither produced nor brought on record. It is further significant that
the handwriting appearing in the said diary was never examined by
any handwriting expert to ascertain whether the diary had, in fact,
been written by the deceased or not. In the absence of any cogent
and legally admissible evidence establishing the genuineness and
authorship of the said diary, the document cannot be relied upon
merely because it was produced by the complainant. The said
document is required to be duly proved in accordance with the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, and in the absence of such
proof, it cannot be treated as a reliable or admissible piece of
evidence.
18. Therefore, after considering all these facts and circumstances, it
is evident that, in their initial statements recorded by the
Investigating Officer, the complainant as well as PW-4 had admitted
that they had neither raised any suspicion or doubt nor made any
allegation against the respondents with regard to any harassment or
ill-treatment allegedly meted out to the deceased. Now, in the
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
absence of any cogent and reliable material evidence produced by
the prosecution, the basic ingredients of the offences punishable
under Sections 306, 498-A and 107 of the IPC cannot be said to have
been established. There is no evidence to show that the respondents
had instigated, provoked, or abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
In the absence of any such evidence having been led by the
prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal, after referring to and relying upon
the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, as
referred to in Paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment. The Trial Court
has, therefore, rightly held that the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove the charges levelled against the respondents beyond
reasonable doubt.
19. So far as the allegations regarding ill-treatment or harassment
caused to the deceased, Bhavnaben, at the hands of the respondents
are concerned, it is borne out from the evidence on record that the
deceased, Bhavnaben, was residing separately with her husband i.e.
respondent No.1 at Vejalpur for the last two years prior to the date of
the incident. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were residing at Isanpur, at a
distance of approximately 10 kilometres from the residence of the
deceased. Therefore, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond
reasonable doubt, that the deceased was subjected to any ill-
treatment or harassment at the instance of the respondents. In the
absence of any cogent and reliable evidence in this regard, the
prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the
respondents. Thus, on perusal of the impugned judgment and the
reasons recorded by the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that the
Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. In view of the
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any
error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order
and I do not find any illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and order warranting interference by this Court.
20. 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.
21. 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
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
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.
22. 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.
23. 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:
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
“42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order
of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling
reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than
to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(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.”
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/354/2012 (GJHC240432952012) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
24. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
25. 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 appeals are
liable to be dismissed.
26. In view of the above, both t h e appeals are devoid of merits and
deserve to be dismissed. Resultantly, both the appeals are hereby
dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record
and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:46 IST 2026