STATE OF GUJARAT vs ARJANBHAI MOHANBHAI SUTHAR
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 800 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ARJANBHAI MOHANBHAI SUTHAR & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 19/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of
Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short)
against the judgment and order dated 11.03.2016 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at
Deodar (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court),
whereby the Trial Court had acquitted the respondents -
accused from the charges under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “IPC”).
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that The
deceased, Pushpaben, was married to respondent No. 1
approximately six years before the incident. During the six
years of their marriage, the deceased had not given birth to
any child. It was alleged that, on account of this and because
the parents of the deceased had not given sufficient dowry,
the respondents demanded a television set and subsequently
raised a further demand for plot. It was further alleged that
all the respondents, namely, the husband, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and cousin uncle, subjected the
deceased to cruelty on account of these demands, as a result
of which she committed suicide by jumping into a well. On the
basis of these allegations, the complainant, who was the
father of the deceased, lodged a complaint against the present
respondents accused.
2.1 The complaint was investigated by prosecution witness
No. 6, I.O. Mr. Alpesh Mohansinh at Exh.49 and a charge-
sheet was filed before the competent jurisdictional
Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of
Session, the learned Magistrate, after completing the
procedure prescribed under Section 209 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, committed Criminal Case No. 519 of
2010 to the concerned Sessions Court.
2.2 Upon receipt of the case papers, the learned trial Judge
framed a charge against the present respondents at Exhibit 6
on 8.12.2011 for offences punishable under Sections 498A,
306, and 114 of the IPC. To prove the charges against the
respondents, the prosecution examined six witnesses,
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
including a doctor, a police witness, and four relatives of the
deceased and produced 16 documentary evidences.
2.3 After hearing both the parties and after evaluating the
evidence, the Trial Court has acquitted the present
respondents from the above mentioned charges. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal, the State of Gujarat has preferred the
present appeal.
3. Heard Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learnd APP for the appellant and Mr.
Tushar Chaudhary, learned advocate for the respondents -
accused.
4. Learned APP submitted that the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence
on record and the principles of justice and, therefore,
deserves to be quashed and set aside. She submitted that the
judgment and order of acquittal is based on inferences not
warranted by the facts of the case and presumptions not
permitted by law.
4.1 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court erred in
acquitting the respondents-accused of the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC. She submitted
that the Trial Court erred in holding that the offence under
Section 306 of the IPC was not proved against the
respondents-accused. She submitted that the deceased was
allegedly subjected to harsh and unfair treatment; however,
the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the
circumstances and evidence on record regarding the alleged
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
instigation and harassment. She submitted that the Trial
Court erred in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove
that, soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in
connection with any unlawful demand.
4.2 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the evidence of PW-1 Ishwarbhai
Madhavji Makwana, Doctor, Exh. 21, who performed the post-
mortem examination; PW-2 Dhanjibhai Devsibhai, complainant
and father of the deceased, Exh. 26; PW-3 Rukshibhai
Devsibhai, uncle of the deceased, Exh. 29; PW-4 Sajuben
Dhanjibhai, mother of the deceased, Exh. 45; PW-5
Hemantram Bhanjibhai, panch witness to the panchnama of
the scene of offence, Exh. 46; and PW-6 Alpesh Mohansing,
Investigating Officer, Exh. 49.
4.3 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
connecting the respondents-accused with the alleged
offences. She submitted that the Trial Court failed to
appreciate the evidence regarding demands for money and
other articles by the respondents-accused. The deceased was
allegedly asked to bring a television and Rs.25,000 and was
subjected to verbal abuse on account of her alleged inability
to conceive.
4.4 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
appreciate the evidence that the deceased was asked by the
respondents accused to obtain a plot at Tharad for
construction of a new house for them and was allegedly
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
threatened with death if she failed to do so. She submitted
that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the evidence of
the complainant, PW-2 Dhanjibhai Devsibhai, was
corroborated by the oral evidence of the deceased’s uncle and
mother.
4.5 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
appreciate that the deceased was allegedly subjected to
physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the respondents-
accused within seven years of her marriage. The Trial Court
failed to consider the applicability of the presumption under
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, subject to
proof of the statutory requirements.
4.6 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
appreciate that there were no material contradictions in the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses regarding the
involvement of the respondents-accused in the offences
punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the IPC. She
submitted that the Trial Court erred in placing undue reliance
on minor omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies that
did not materially affect the prosecution case. She submitted
that, in any event, the judgment and order of acquittal passed
by the Trial Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the
evidence on record and, therefore, deserves to be quashed
and set aside by this Court.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents
accused supported the judgment and order of acquittal.
5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents accused submitted
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the Trial Court is legal, just, and proper and has been passed
after thorough appreciation of the oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record. The Trial Court has assigned
cogent, convincing, and well-reasoned findings while
acquitting the respondents–accused, and the same does not
warrant any interference by this Court.
5.2 Learned counsel for the respondents accused submitted
that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled
against the respondents accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence led by the prosecution suffers from material
contradictions, omissions, and inconsistencies, which create
serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. He
submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the
essential ingredients of the alleged offences and has not
produced reliable, trustworthy, and corroborative evidence
connecting the respondents accused with the commission of
the alleged offence.
5.3 Learned counsel for the respondents accused 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. 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.
5.4 Learned counsel for the respondents accused submitted
that the appellant has failed to point out any infirmity,
illegality, perversity, or misreading of evidence in the
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
impugned judgment and order. The findings recorded by the
Trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of the
evidence and settled legal principles. The Trial Court has
rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents–
accused, which is a substantive right flowing from the
fundamental principles of criminal law.
5.5 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
submitted that the present appeal is devoid of merits and
deserves to be dismissed. The impugned judgment and order
of acquittal passed by the Trial Court therefore deserves to be
confirmed.
6. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order, as well
as the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for
both sides, the issues that arises for consideration before this
Court are as under:-
Whether the Trial Court committed any error in passing
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal?
Whether the Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, has committed any error of
law or fact?
Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
suffers from any illegality or perversity?
7. In view of the above-stated submissions and upon perusal of
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, as well as the
evidence recorded by the Trial Court, it is appropriate to first
examine some of the facts of the case. The deceased,
Pushpaben, was married to respondent No. 1 for about six
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
years and had no children. It was alleged that the respondents
demanded a television and a plot and subjected her to cruelty
due to childlessness and insufficient dowry, leading her to
commit suicide by jumping into a well. Her father lodged the
complaint against all the respondents. PW-6, I.O. Alpesh
Mohansinh (Exh.49), investigated the case. Criminal Case No.
519 of 2010 was committed to the Sessions Court, which
framed charges under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC
vide Exh.6 dated 8.12.2011. The prosecution examined six
witnesses; however, no independent witness was examined to
substantiate the allegations of cruelty and harassment.
8. It is pertinent to note that the incident was initially
reported as an accidental death by the husband of the
deceased on 16.09.2010. According to the information
furnished by him, Pushpaben had died due to an accidental
fall into a well. The accidental death report furnished by the
husband, respondent No. 1, was produced on record at
Exhibit 51. As no independent witness was examined to
establish cruelty or harassment, the complainant father’s
evidence must be assessed alongside the FIR and other
evidence on record.
9. On the basis of the information regarding the accidental
death, the investigation proceeded further and the inquest
panchnama and other relevant panchnamas were prepared by
PW-6 in the presence of the panch witnesses.
10. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW-2, the father of the
deceased Pushpaben, it emerges that the respondents had
allegedly demanded dowry articles namely a television set.
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
Consequently, the complainant claimed to have given
Rs.25,000/- to the deceased for purchasing a television set in
the presence of his brother, Rupsibhai Devsibhai, and an
independent witness, Lavjibhai. It further emerges from the
evidence that the marriage was a saata marriage, as the
complainant's son, Ramesh, was engaged to his sister-in-law,
respondent No. 3, Nayanaben. It was alleged that, as the
marriage between Ramesh and Nayanaben had not been
solemnised, the respondents subjected the deceased to mental
and physical harassment on that account. It was further
alleged that the cousin brother of one of the respondents, who
was not residing with the other respondents, was also
involved in the incident and had instigated the other
respondents to harass the deceased. However, upon perusal of
the cross-examination of PW-2, it emerges that respondent
No. 1, the husband of the deceased, was employed in a
diamond factory and occasionally visited the house, as he was
engaged in labour work at Tharad and did not frequently visit
his village. Similarly, the father-in-law was engaged in
agriculture as well as carpentry and was not present at home
all the time. Nevertheless, the complainant alleged that the
respondents, along with the other family members, had
subjected the deceased to harassment. Significantly, in his
complaint as well as in his deposition before the Court, the
complainant stated that he had given Rs.25,000/- to the
deceased Pushpaben for purchasing a television set in the
presence of his brother, Rupsibhai, and an independent
witness, Lavjibhai Mayarambhai. However, the prosecution
did not examine Lavjibhai, the independent witness cited by
the complainant. As regards the evidence of Rupsibhai, who
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
was examined as PW-3, a material discrepancy is apparent.
While the complainant consistently referred to an amount of
Rs.25,000/-, PW-3 stated that his brother had paid Rs.30,000/-
in his presence. The complainant did not refer to the payment
of Rs.30,000/- either in the FIR or in his deposition before the
Trial Court. This discrepancy amounts to a material
inconsistency between the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 and
raises doubts regarding the alleged payment. PW-4, the
mother of the deceased, did not provide any further material
evidence in support of the prosecution's case beyond the facts
narrated by her husband. She also failed to provide any
specific details regarding the nature, manner, or
circumstances of the alleged harassment or cruelty inflicted
upon the deceased. PW-5, the panch witness, did not support
the prosecution's case. However, the evidence concerning the
place of the incident and the relevant panchnama indicates
that the deceased had gone to fetch water and had allegedly
fallen into the well accidentally. The presence of utensils near
the well, particularly on the second step, lends support to the
possibility that the incident occurred while she was fetching
water. Apart from these witnesses, the prosecution did not
examine any other independent witness to substantiate the
charges against the respondents.
11. It is also pertinent to note that, although the deceased
died an unnatural death at her matrimonial home within seven
years of her marriage, the applicable State Government
notification required such cases to be inquired into and
investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP). However, upon perusal of
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
the record, it appears that the investigation was neither
conducted nor supervised by any senior police officer, such as
a Dy. SP or a Circle Police Inspector. Except for PW-6, no other
police witness was examined by the prosecution. Thus, upon
consideration of the evidence of all six prosecution witnesses,
it appears that the prosecution has failed to establish the
charges against the present respondents beyond reasonable
doubt. In particular, the prosecution has failed to prove that
the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the
respondents within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC or
that such cruelty or harassment led her to commit suicide,
thereby attracting the provisions of Section 306 read with
Section 107 of the IPC.
12. It is further noteworthy that the Trial Court rightly
refrained from drawing any adverse presumption against the
respondents under Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act. Although the deceased died an unnatural death
at her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage,
the prosecution failed to produce cogent evidence
establishing that the respondents had subjected her to mental
or physical cruelty. Even upon considering the testimonies of
PW-2, the father of the deceased; PW-3, her uncle, Rupsibhai;
and PW-4, her mother, no satisfactory evidence or specific
averments have emerged to establish that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by the respondents.
13. So far as the alleged demand for dowry is concerned,
material inconsistencies and omissions are apparent in the
testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3. The prosecution alleged that
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
the complainant had paid Rs.25,000/- to the deceased for
purchasing a television set in the presence of his brother,
Rupsibhai, and an independent witness. However, the
independent witness, Lavjibhai Mayarambhai, was not
examined to corroborate the alleged payment. Furthermore,
PW-3 referred to a payment of Rs.30,000/-, whereas the
complainant consistently referred to Rs.25,000/-. In these
circumstances, the alleged payment and the underlying
demand have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
14. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence
establishing that the respondents demanded dowry or
subjected the deceased to mental or physical cruelty on
account of such demands, the prosecution has failed to prove
the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt.
15. At this stage it is appropriate to refer the provisions of
Section 498A, 306 and 107 of the IPC and 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act, which are reproduced hereunder :
Section 498A-Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.—
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.
Section 306- Abetment of suicide.—
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Section 107- Abetment of a thing.—
A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
(First) — Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly) — Engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or
(Thirdly) — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.— A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by
wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Section 113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman. [Inserted by Act 46 of 1983, Section 7.]-
When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a
woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her
husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a
period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to
cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by
her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860).]
16. So far as Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC is concerned, it
is also appropriate to refer the decision of this Court in cases
of State Of Gujarat Versus Ashvinbhai Naginbhai Tandel
reported in 2025 (0) GUJHC 20677, State Of Gujarat Versus
Bhaveshbhai Manilalbhai Patel reported in 2025 (2) GLR 923,
State Of Gujarat Versus Haji Haroon Meman reported in 2026
(0) GUJHC 7002 as well as the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the cases of Ramesh Kumar Versus State Of
Chhattisgarh reported in 2001 (9) SCC 618 and Ram Pyarey
Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 (6) SCC 820.
Even, so far as the statutory presumption under Sections
113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held that before such a
presumption can be drawn, there must be at least some
cogent material or evidence giving rise to an inference against
the accused. In the absence of even the slightest evidence on
record from which such an inference can reasonably be drawn
against the respondents regarding the commission of the
alleged offences, the statutory presumption cannot be
invoked.
17. There is neither direct nor indirect evidence produced by
the prosecution to establish that any act or conduct on the
part of the respondents accused had driven the deceased to
such an extent that she was left with no alternative but to take
the extreme step of committing suicide. Therefore, under the
circumstances, the trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal. No infirmity,
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
illegality, or perversity is found in the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal. Hence, the present appeal is devoid of
merits and deserves to be dismissed.
18. On perusal of the record of the appeal, it transpires that
the respondents-accused have established their innocence
before the Trial Court and that, after due appreciation of the
oral as well as documentary evidence and other material
placed on record, the Trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The findings
recorded by the Trial Court are just, proper and in accordance
with the settled principles of law and, therefore, no
interference is warranted by this Court.
19. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the 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.
20. 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
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
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 he is charged.
21. 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
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
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.
22. 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.
(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
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
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.”
23. 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.
24. 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
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026
R/CR.A/800/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240526822016)
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
25. 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.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:10 IST 2026