STATE OF GUJARAT vs KISHRBHAI POPATLAL VAGHELA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 292 of 1998
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KISHRBHAI POPATLAL VAGHELA & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
MR KAIVAN K PATEL(6338) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
==========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 16/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
order dated 09.01.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in
Sessions Case No. 40 of 1994, whereby the trial Court has acquitted
the original accused (respondents herein) from the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that Shantaben
Bhavarsinh Virsinh Sadhva along with her family were residing in the
area of Sanjaynagar, Hanuman Maholla, Vadodara and the mother
namely Premaben and brother namely Pappu @ Ramchandra
(deceased) were residing behind the residence of the complainant.
That on 10.06.1993 at about 9.15 p.m., complainant Shantaben, her
mother and brother Ramchandra, after taking dinner, were siting on
Ota outside the house and they were talking each other at that time
accused No.1 and accused No.2 carrying iron pipe, accused No.3
carrying an Axe and accused No.4 carrying wooden log rushed to the
house of Ramchandra and asked him that why he disturbed their
sleep on account of quarrel and altercation in every day. Due to that
accused No.3 inflicted an Axe blow on the head of Ramchandra
because of that Ramchandra sustained serious injury on the head and
due to the injury, there was profuse bleeding and thereafter, all the
accused dragged the deceased at Sanjay Chowk situated almost 100
metres away from the house of the deceased where all the accused
inflicted blows on the deceased haphazardly. At that time, the
complainant was present and she rushed to the place of incident and
tried to save her brother and, thereafter, the accused were run away
from the place. The complainant along with her sister and sister-in-law
i.e. wife of the deceased took Ramchandra to the Civil Hospital in
rickshaw where he was admitted as an indoor patient and during the
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
treatment the deceased was died. Hence, a complaint was lodged by
the complainant before 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.
3. I t appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses and in
addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the 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. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant has preferred this appeal.
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
7. Heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat at length. It appears that though
Mr.Kaivan Patel, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents, but he
has chosen not to appear before the Court.
8. Ms.Bhatt, 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
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.
8.1 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.
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
8.2 Ms.Bhatt, 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.
8.3 Ms.Bhatt, 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 the trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in law,
thereby calling for interference by this Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. She 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.
8.4 According to Ms.Bhatt, 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.
9. Considering the aforesaid submissions and aspects, this Court is
first required to examine the fact of the case. That, the complainant
Shantaben Bhavarsinh Virsinh Sadhva along with her family were
residing in the area of Sanjaynagar, Hanuman Maholla, Vadodara and
the mother namely Premaben and brother namely Pappu @
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
Ramchandra (deceased) were residing behind the residence of the
complainant. That on 10.06.1993 at about 9.15 p.m., complainant
Shantaben, her mother and brother Ramchandra, after taking dinner,
were siting on Ota outside the house and they were talking each other
at that time accused No.1 and accused No.2 carrying iron pipe,
accused No.3 carrying an Axe and accused No.4 carrying wooden log
were rushed to the house of Ramchandra and asked him that why he
disturbed their sleep and because of their quarrel and altercation in
high volume, disturbed their sleep. As a result, accused No.3 inflicted
an Axe blow on the head of Ramchandra because of that Ramchandra
sustained serious injury on the head and due to the injury, there was
profuse bleeding and thereafter, all the accused dragged the
deceased at Sanjay Chowk situated almost 100 metres away from the
house of the deceased where all the accused inflicted blows on the
deceased haphazardly. At that time, the complainant was present and
she rushed to the place of incident and tried to save her brother and,
thereafter, the accused were run away from the place. The
complainant along with her sister and sister-in-law i.e. wife of the
deceased took Ramchandra to the Civil Hospital in rickshaw where he
was admitted as an indoor patient and during the treatment the
deceased was died.
10. On perusal of the evidence of the complainant, Shantaben
Bhavarsinh (P.W.1), it appears that she deposed that, after taking
dinner, her brother and mother were sitting outside their house. Her
brother was sitting on a cot, whereas her mother was sitting on the
Ota (raised platform). They were discussing why the deceased was
not earning and giving money to their mother. During the course of
this discussion, they were speaking loudly, which annoyed the
accused, who rushed towards the house. She further deposed that her
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
brother and mother were residing behind her house, while her sister
was also residing in the same vicinity. On hearing the shouts, the
complainant came out of her house and saw that her mother and
brother were quarreling with each other. At that time, the accused
arrived with weapons in their hands, and accused No. 3 assaulted the
deceased with an axe on his head. As a result of the injury, blood was
oozing from the wound, and bloodstains were found on the Ota.
11. On perusal of the contents of the panchnama of the scene of
the offence, it emerges that the incident did not take place at the
location described by the complainant; rather, the place of occurrence
appears to have been different. During the course of the preparation
of the panchnama, bloodstains were found on the Ota of the
deceased's house.
12. So far as the injuries described by the complainant are
concerned, the same are not supported by the medical evidence.
Except for three related witnesses, namely, the sister, the mother,
and a neighbour, none of the witnesses supported the prosecution's
case. In fact, material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
the said witnesses were duly proved through the testimony of the
concerned Investigating Officer. Another significant aspect emerges
from the evidence of the complainant, who stated that, at about 7:30
p.m., after taking dinner, her mother and brother were sitting outside
their house on the Ota. However, from the evidence of Dr. Vaishaliben
Niranjan Dave (P.W.11), who performed the post-mortem
examination, it appears that the stomach and urethra of the deceased
were completely empty, indicating that the deceased had not
consumed any food or liquid for approximately five to six hours.
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
13. If the timing stated by P.W.1 is considered, it is found to be
inconsistent with the prosecution's case. Thus, there is a variance
between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony of the
witnesses. The doctor also opined that no injury was found on the
head of the deceased that could have been caused by an axe. In other
words, no axe-blow injury was found on the head of the deceased. The
doctor attributed the cause of death to injuries involving the ribs and
lungs. It further appears that the post-mortem examination was
conducted on the following day, i.e., 11.06.1993, commencing at
10:00 a.m. and concluding at 11:30 a.m. Even if the period of five to
six hours is taken into consideration, the timing of the incident as
stated by the complainant does not correspond with the medical
evidence. The discrepancy is further substantiated by the doctor's
opinion that no injury was found on the head of the deceased that
could have been caused by an axe. Therefore, the version put forward
by P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3, claiming to be eyewitnesses to the
incident, does not inspire confidence. The manner in which the
complainant described the incident is also not supported by the
medical evidence. Consequently, their claim that the incident took
place in their presence and in the manner alleged by them cannot be
accepted without serious doubt.
14. It is further pertinent to note that, although the wife of the
deceased accompanied the complainant when the deceased was
taken to the hospital, the prosecution did not examine her as a
witness. The circumstances emerging from the record and the
evidence adduced before the Court indicate that the time of the
incident narrated by the complainant, her mother, and her sister does
not correspond with the post-mortem report or the evidence of the
doctor. It also appears from the record that the place of occurrence
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
was different from the place described by the complainant. Neither
the wife of the deceased nor the independent witnesses associated
with the panchnama supported the prosecution's version regarding
the incident and the circumstances recorded therein. It is true that a
panchnama may be proved through the testimony of police witnesses.
However, the contents of the panchnama, when considered in the
light of the evidence on record, do not establish beyond reasonable
doubt the alleged recovery of the weapons or the arrest of the
accused in the manner claimed by the prosecution. Therefore, upon a
cumulative consideration of all the aforesaid circumstances, it
emerges that the prosecution has failed to establish the genesis of
the incident. On the contrary, the complainant admitted in her cross-
examination that all the accused were friends of the deceased and
that there had been no quarrel, exchange of blows, or altercation
between them. Thus, in the absence of any established motive or
other convincing circumstances, the version put forward by the three
witnesses raises serious doubts and is not corroborated by the
independent circumstances on record. In view of the discrepancies
between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, the trial
Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused while
passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
15. So far as the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses is
concerned, it would be appropriate to narrate the law regarding the
appreciation of ocular evidence. In the case of Balu Sudam Khalde
v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 ,
wherein the principles of appreciating the ocular evidence have been
summarized. The same is reproduced hereinunder for ready
reference:-
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
APPRECIATION OF ORAL EVIDENCE
25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task.
There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation
of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for
appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be
enumerated as under:
“I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness
read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping
in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed
out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find
out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence
given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of
the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had
the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor
of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which
had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the
appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there
are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper
to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts
should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in
the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the
credibility of his version that the court is justified in
jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the
core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking
sentences torn out of context here or there from the
evidence, attaching importance to some technical error
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
committed by the investigating officer not going to the root
of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the
evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations
falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the
evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of
the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial
scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a
photographic memory and to recall the details of an
incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the
mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by
events. The witness could not have anticipated the
occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The
mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be
attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to
person. What one may notice, another may not. An object
or movement might emboss its image on one person's
mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a
conversation and reproduce the very words used by them
or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of
the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be
a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their
estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the
time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to
make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.
Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which
varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
accurately the sequence of events which take place in
rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable
to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be
overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross
examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up
facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up
details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The
sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates
on account of the fear of looking foolish or being
disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and
honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent
with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to
amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has
the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the
later statement is at variance with the former to some
extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.”
[See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of
Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram
v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar
Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)].
16. Although the testimony of interested witnesses may be relied
upon, the quality of the evidence, rather than the number of
witnesses, is of paramount importance. If the testimony of a witness is
of sterling quality and is unimpeachable, the Court may certainly
convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. However, even
where the prosecution relies upon eyewitness testimony, if such
testimony fails to inspire confidence or is affected by serious
discrepancies and material inconsistencies, the Court may decline to
rely upon it. It would be worthwhile to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs
No.150, 151 and 153 as under:-
“150. The High Court has referred to some decisions of this
Court and tried to apply the ratio of those cases to the
present case which, as we shall show, are clearly
distinguishable. The High Court was greatly impressed by
the view taken by some Courts, including this Court, that a
false defence or a false plea taken by an accused would be
an additional link in the various chain of circumstantial
evidence and seems to suggest that since the appellant
had taken a false plea that would be conclusive, taken
along with other circumstances, to prove the case. We
might, however, mention at the outset that this is not what
this Court has said. We shall elaborate this aspect of the
matter a little later.
151. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall
on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the
weakness of the defence. This is trite law and no decision
has taken a contrary view. What some cases have held is
only this where various links in a chain are in themselves
complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be
called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other
words, before using the additional link it must be proved
that all the links in the chain are complete and do not
suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where there
is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same
could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea
which is not accepted by a court.
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
an accused can be said to be fully established :
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be'
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or
should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahebrao Bobade V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
793 where the following observations were made : [SCC
para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri.) p. 1047]
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict
and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is
long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in
all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
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
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while
exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which they are charged.
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
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with
the similar issue, more प्रे 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:-
“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. प्रे
(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
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
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.”
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-
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026
R/CR.A/292/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240325361998)
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above, this Court is 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. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is sustainable in the
eyes of law 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
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)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 10:41:11 IST 2026