STATE OF GUJARAT vs BAROT PRAVINCHANDRA RAMCHANDRA

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 851 of 2010

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BAROT PRAVINCHANDRA RAMCHANDRA & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS NISHI PATEL FOR HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 14/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and
order dated 20.02.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Main
Court), Gandhinagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in
Sessions Case No.11 of 2009, whereby the trial Court has acquitted
the original accused (respondents herein) from the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 etc of the Indian Penal
Code.
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the daughter of the
complainant namely Devika married with accused No.1 and out of
said wedlock, she delivered a girl child and the marriage life of Devika
was going on smoothly. It is alleged that on 24.07.2008, Devika made
a phone call to her mother and during the conversation, she told her
mother that due to her daughter, she could not attend the household
work properly to which in-laws used to give her mental and physical
torture. It is further alleged that on 25.07.2008, in the morning, when
the complainant tried to talk with Devika on her mobile phone,
accused No.1 has informed the complainant that his wife Devika was
inside the washroom and she was neither giving any reply nor coming
outside and, therefore, they broke the door and they found that the
deceased felt unconscious in the washroom and not giving any
answer and, hence, they immediately inform 108 emergency services.
It is alleged that at the time of taking her to the hospital, her condition
was serious and she was not responding and, therefore, she was
taken to the Civil Hospital where the deceased was died. Hence, a
complaint was lodged by the complainant before the jurisdictional
Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The police prepared
panchnama of the scene of offence and after preparing the arrest
panchnama, the accused came to be arrested. On completion of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted into the Court of learned
J.M.F.C.
2.1 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court 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 trial Court.
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
3. I t appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the fourteen witnesses including two
doctors, panchas and police personnel and parents of the deceased,
two real sisters and one brother-in-law of the deceased and in
addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following
documentary evidence.
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.
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. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3 was
expired and, therefore, the appeal qua respondent No.3 is abated.
Now, the appeal remains only against respondents No.1 and 2.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant has preferred this appeal.
8. Heard Ms.Jiraga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Ms.Nishi Patel, learned counsel
for HL Patel Advocates for the respondents – accused at length.
9. Ms.Jhaveril, l earned 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
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. 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.
9.1 While referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the
material collected against the accused, 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. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor 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.
9.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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.
9.3 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that
the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on
record, based on erroneous appreciation of material evidence, and
has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and the findings recorded by
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
the trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in law, thereby calling
for interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted
that the trial Court has materially erred in holding that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
the findings recorded by the trial Court were therefore perverse,
illegal, and contrary to the evidence on record.
9.4 According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court
ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed
necessary sentence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed
to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal.
10. Per contra, Ms.Patel, 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.
Learned counsel for the respondents - accused 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. Learned counsel for the
respondents has also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to
connect the accused with the alleged crime in question. Learned
counsel for the respondents has submitted that the evidence led by
the prosecution suffers from material contradictions, omissions, and
inconsistencies, which create serious doubt about the veracity of the
prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to establish the
essential ingredients of the alleged offences and has not produced
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
reliable, trustworthy, and corroborative evidence connecting the
respondent with the commission of the alleged offence. Learned
counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is a settled principle
of criminal jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence in favour
of an accused is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. It is
submitted that unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are
shown to be perverse, illegal, or contrary to the evidence on record,
the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with an order of
acquittal. It is submitted that the appellant has failed to point out any
infirmity, illegality, perversity, or misreading of evidence in the
impugned judgment and order and the findings recorded by the trial
Court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and settled
legal principles. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted
that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
11. Considering the aforesaid submissions and aspects, this Court is
first required to examine the fact of the case. The fact emerges that
the daughter of the complainant namely Devika married to
respondent No.1 prior to two and half years of the incident and during
the wedlock, deceased delivered a girl child aged about one year.
That after the marriage, the deceased was residing in joint family with
her mother-in-law and sister-in-law in a Government Quarters allotted
to her husband as he was working as Typist-Cum-Clerk in the office of
the Director General of Police at Gandhinagar and their marriage life
was going on smoothly and there was no any such allegation.
However, on 25.07.2008 in early hour, accused No.1 has informed the
complainant that his wife Devika was inside the washroom and she
was neither giving any reply nor coming outside and, therefore, they
broke the door and they found that the deceased felt unconscious in
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
the washroom and not giving any answer and, hence, they
immediately inform 108 emergency services. It is alleged that at the
time of taking her to the hospital, her condition was serious and she
was not responding and hence, she was taken to the Civil Hospital
where doctor found that the deceased was died. During the course of
the postmortem, the doctor opined that the deceased died due to
aphasia and on the basis of incident, on the next day, the complainant
being father of the deceased lodged the complaint against the
respondent No.1 being husband, respondent No.2 being sister-in-law
and respondent No.3 being mother-in-law. So far as the allegations
made against respondents No.1 and 2 are concerned, respondent
No.1 was serving in the office of the Director General of Police as
Typist-Cum-Clerk, so he used to left the home in early morning and
returned home after 6.30 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., whereas, respondent
No.2 was prosecuting her study and, therefore, she also left the home
in the morning hours to attend the college for L.L.B. course. The
respondent No.3 only was present in the house with whom the
deceased had some altercation and conversation with regard to the
household work and because of that the normal quarrel took place
between them. On the basis of such fact, the complaint was lodged,
whereby, the complainant suspected that his daughter was killed by
the accused and, therefore, he lodged the complaint. In fact, since the
younger brother the deceased was going to Pune for joining the
service, the deceased went to drop her brother at Airport and prior to
three days only, the deceased returned back to her matrimonial home
and the incident took place on 25.07.2008. It is alleged that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment physically and
mentally on account of household work at the hands of the accused
and, therefore, the accused have committed the alleged offence and
the complainant suspected that the deceased might be killed by the
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
accused.
12. Upon perusal of the evidence of the complainant, Rameshbhai
Chunilal Barot (P.W.1), it appears that he has stated that the accused
and the deceased were residing in Government Quarters at
Gandhinagar. After their marriage, their matrimonial life was going on
smoothly, and they were living happily. During the subsistence of
their marriage, the deceased gave birth to a girl child. Accused No. 2
was pursuing a law degree and attending college in the morning
hours, whereas her husband was serving as a Typist-cum-Clerk in the
office of the Director General of Police and remained at his office from
10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The complainant has not narrated any
incident occurring up to 24.07.2008 involving a quarrel between the
husband and wife nor has he stated that the deceased had made any
allegation or complaint or request him to intervene on account of any
ill-treatment or harassment. Thus, during the aforesaid period, no
allegation or complaint of ill-treatment or harassment was made by
the deceased to her parents. It is alleged that on 25.07.2008, the
complainant telephoned the deceased and after she had a
conversation with her father and mother, she committed suicide the
following morning. Except for the aforesaid allegation, no other
incident or act or omission has been attributed to the accused from
which an adverse inference could be drawn against them.
13. From the evidence of the mother, Shardaben Rameshbhai Barot
(P.W.4), it appears that, until 24.07.2008, when her husband
telephoned their daughter, the deceased had not made any complaint
to anyone regarding ill-treatment, harassment or torture. Further, the
evidence does not disclose what transpired during the telephone
conversation between the deceased and her parents. In particular, no
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
specific facts have emerged on record regarding the conversation
between the deceased and the complainant or his wife that would
indicate any ill-treatment or harassment at the hands of the accused.
14. Upon perusal of the evidence of Varshaben Yogeshkumar Barot
(P.W.5), Switiben Maheshkumar Barot (P.W.7), and Maheshbhai
Maneklal Barot (P.W.8), it emerges that these witnesses have not
provided any further details regarding the harassment or cruelty
allegedly inflicted upon the deceased by the accused, either in the
past or during the last few days preceding the incident. On the
contrary, whenever the deceased wished to visit her parental home,
her husband accompanied her, and she would stay there for one or
two weeks at a time. None of these witnesses has deposed to any
adverse incident involving the accused during such visits. Even in
June 2008, when the brother of the deceased was about to leave
Ahmedabad to join his service at Pune, the deceased stayed with her
brother and other family members for approximately one week. On
each occasion, the deceased returned to her matrimonial home
without making any complaint against the accused. In view of the
aforesaid evidence, it appears that no material was brought on record
during the course of the investigation, including through the
testimony of the police witnesses, to establish circumstances
warranting the application of the presumptions under Sections 113A
and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The marriage had lasted only
about two and a half years. However, the mere duration of the
marriage, by itself, would not justify drawing such a presumption. At
least some evidence of cruelty, harassment or a complaint by the
deceased to her family members regarding the alleged ill-treatment
by her in-laws was required to establish the relevant foundational
facts. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it appears that
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
the only allegation concerning the conduct of the mother-in-law
relates to occasional quarrels over household work. Apart from this
allegation, none of the witnesses has deposed that accused Nos. 1
and 2 subjected the deceased to mental or physical harassment or
cruelty of such a nature as to have driven her to commit suicide,
particularly when she had a young child of approximately one and a
half years of age.
15. Upon consideration of the evidence of the concerned doctor, it
appears that the death of the deceased was caused by asphyxia, a
finding consistent with death by hanging. The medical evidence also
indicates that, had three persons simultaneously strangulated the
deceased, the injuries found on her body would have been of a
different nature. Therefore, the medical evidence supports the
conclusion that the deceased died by suicide by hanging. It further
emerges from the evidence that, initially, the incident was recorded
as an accidental death upon information provided by Dr. Pritesh
Gandhi of the Civil Hospital to the concerned police constable, who
accordingly registered the accidental death entry. On the basis of the
said entry, Krishnakumarsinh Chandrasinh Chudasama (P.W.11)
visited the scene of the incident and informed the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) Officer, who also visited the place of occurrence.
However, no further material emerged from the evidence of the FSL
Officer to support the prosecution's case. In the present case, five
police officers were involved in the investigation at different stages.
Even before the commencement of the investigation, an accidental
death entry had been registered, pursuant to which the Investigating
Officer visited the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the investigation
was entrusted to another police officer, who also visited the scene of
the incident. Nevertheless, from the evidence of the police witnesses,
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
it appears that no further material was brought on record to establish
that the deceased had been subjected to harassment or cruelty at the
hands of the accused. It is well settled that, in order to establish the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), the prosecution must prove the essential
ingredients of the respective offences. In particular, the prosecution
must establish whether the deceased had been subjected to ill-
treatment, harassment or torture in the past and whether any act or
omission on the part of the accused amounted to instigation,
intentional aid or abetment in relation to the deceased's decision to
commit suicide at her matrimonial home. In the absence of the
essential ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of the
IPC, the charges under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC cannot be
sustained merely on the basis of the deceased's suicide. As observed
by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order,
the prosecution was required to establish the necessary ingredients of
the alleged offences. It is well settled, as laid down in various
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, that the
prosecution must establish the essential ingredients of Section 107 of
the IPC to prove the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306
of the IPC. In the present case, upon consideration of the evidence of
the five witnesses, namely, the father, mother, two real sisters, and
brother-in-law of the deceased, it appears that no material
circumstance has been established to support the prosecution's case
or to conclude that the accused had instigated, intentionally aided, or
otherwise abetted the deceased in committing suicide.
16. That the trial Court has recorded the findings in para 12
onwards and dealt with the evidence led by the prosecution in detail
in relation to each of the witnesses and also recorded the reasons in
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
para 30 onwards discussing the settled principles enunciated by the
different decisions referred in the judgment and order upto para 39.
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.
17. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an Appellate Court
has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate
Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
18. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while
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
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which they are charged.
19. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43 , which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of 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, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by
the trial Court.
20. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169 , wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa
and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of
the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a
judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:
“42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the evidence before it
may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact
and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very
strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive
powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(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
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for
discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able
to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It
was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it
would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a
contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is
absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject
their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of
the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this
light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing
with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered
judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the
benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
21. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
22. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
23. In view of the above, t h e present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026

R/CR.A/851/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240468672010)
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)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:45 IST 2026