STATE OF GUJARAT vs PRAVINBHAI @ LALO SANDHABHAI PRAJAPATI

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 500 of 1998
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVINBHAI @ LALO SANDHABHAI PRAJAPATI
==========================================
Appearance:
MR UTKARSH SHARMA APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 29/10/2026

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
order dated 31.01.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 136 of 1997, whereby the learned
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the original accused
(respondent herein) from the offences punishable under Sections 363,
366, 376, 201 etc of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the complainant that on 19.12.1996, her
daughter (the victim) came home at about 2.00 p.m. and informed
her that examination of the other students were going on and,
therefore, the students had been released during recess hours and
hence, she had not attended the school. The victim then demanded
50 paise from her mother and after receiving the same, she went to
the Pan Galla. It is further averred that though the victim did not
return home, at about 4.00 p.m., the complainant went to search of
the victim. At that time, one Kevadbhai Pujabhai Dabhi informed the
complainant that a girl had been found near the bus stand. On
reaching the spot and making inquiry, the complainant found her
daughter lying there in an unconscious condition and saw bloodstains
on the frock and on undergarment of the victim and she also saw
injuries on the private part of the victim. Thereafter, Kevadbhai and
Vasantbhai took the victim on a scooter to the Navagam District
Panchayat Hospital. Subsequently, for further treatment, she was
shifted to the V. S. Hospital, Ahmedabad, where the complainant
lodged the complaint. It is further alleged in the complaint that some
unknown person had committed rape upon the victim and the blood
was oozing from her private part and thereafter abandoned her on the
road near the canal. Therefore, for investigation, the complainant
approached the Senior Police Station, Matar Camp / Ahmedabad and
a complaint was lodged by the complainant before Matar Police
Station for the aforesaid offences, which was registered as C.R.No. I –
308 of 1996. The police prepared panchnama of the scene of offence
and after preparing the arrest panchnama and then the accused was
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
arrested. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed
before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
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 learned Sessions Judge.
3. I t appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
P.W. No. Name of Witnesses Exhibit
1 Dr. Khemchand Bijalbhai Parmar 07
2 Manjulaben Thakorbhai Patel 11
3 Thakorbhai Prabhubhai Patel 13
4 Victim 14
5 Ranchhodbhai Shakarabhai Rabari 15
6 Vasantbhai Govindbhai Patel 16
7 Ramsingbhai Bhathibhai Jhala 21
8 Bakorbhai Somabhai Prajapati 23
9 Nishant Nanjibha Dodiya 26
10 Premal Jashvantlal Shah 30
11 Dineshbhai Gandubhai Pethani 33
12 Indiraben Ashabhai 36
13 Pareshbhai Vithalbhai 37
14 Budhabhai Gordhanbhai Baraiya 39
15 Jayeshkumar Jashubhai Patel 40
16 Bipinbhai Mohanbhai 42
17 Bachimiya Kalumiya Shaikh 44
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
18 Ramtubhai Motibhai Chauhan 46
19 Bharatsinh Bhagvatsinh Rana 48
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the
following documentary evidence.
Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit
1 Medical certificate issued by Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Kheda
08
2 Complaint 12
3 Panchnama of physical condition of the accused 17
4 Birth certificate of victim issued by Gram
Panchayat, Balot
18
5 Certificate issued by Kanya Shala Navagam 19
6 Medical certificate of victim issued by Medical
Officer, District Panchayat dispensary, Navagam,
Taluka: Matar, District: Kheda
27
7 Medical certificate of victim issued by Sheth Vadilal
Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad
31
8 Medical certificate of victim issued by Sheth Vadilal
Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad
34
9 Panchnama of the scene of offence where the
victim was lying
38
10 Seizure panchnama 41
11 Panchnama of the scene of offence 47
12 FSL report 53
13 Analysis report 54
5. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been
recorded wherein he denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that he is innocent. Upon hearing both sides and
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
considering the evidence on records, the learned Sessions Judge by
impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the
charges levelled against him.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant has preferred this appeal.
7. Heard Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Dr.Hardik K. Raval, learned
counsel for the respondents – accused at length.
8. Mr.Sharma, 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. Mr.Sharma, 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, Mr.Sharma, 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 learned Sessions
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
Judge has discarded and disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses.
He 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.
8.2 Mr.Sharma, 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 learned Sessions
Judge has disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the witnesses.
8.3 Mr.Sharma, 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 learned Sessions Judge 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 learned Sessions Judge has
materially erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge were therefore perverse, illegal, and contrary
to the evidence on record.
8.4 Mr.Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also
submitted that the accused kidnapped the daughter of the
complainant, who was aged about 7 years at the time of incident from
her lawful guardian and committed rape on victim and hence the
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
accused ought to have convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 363, 366, 376 etc of the IPC. He has submitted that the
father of the victim and the complainant have fully supported the
case of the prosecution, however, the learned Sessions Judge has not
considered the evidence of the said witnesses and passed the
judgment and order acquitting the accused. He has submitted that
the accused was identified by the prosecutrix during the T.I. Parade
before the Executive Magistrate and therefore there is no reason to
disbelieve and discard the case of the prosecution. He has submitted
that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the FSL
Report at Exhibit 53 and serological report at Exhibit 54 and these two
reports are corroborative and shows blood group “A” on the clothes of
the victim and the accused.
8.5 According to Mr.Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have
imposed necessary sentence. Mr.Sharma, 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. Per contra, Dr.Raval, learned counsel for the respondent –
accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any
error of law and fact in acquitting the accused from the charges
levelled against him. He has submitted that the ingredients of the
offence alleged against the accused are not proved beyond
reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has
rightly acquitted the accused as the complainant has failed to prove
the charge levelled against the accused. He has also submitted that
there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the alleged
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
crime in question. He 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
reliable, trustworthy, and corroborative evidence connecting the
respondent with the commission of the alleged offence. He 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 learned Sessions Judge 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. Dr.Raval, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
10. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the relevant aspects
of the matter, this Court is required to first examine the facts of the
case that the alleged kidnapping and rape of the victim, for which, the
complaint was lodged. It is the case of the prosecution that on
19.12.1996, during the afternoon hours, as examination of other
students were going on at the school, the victim returned home and
thereafter went out to play with her friends and the complainant gave
her 50 paise, thereafter, the victim went to the Pan Galla. It is further
alleged that though the victim did not return home, the complainant
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
went to search of the victim at about 4.00 p.m. After some time, one
Kevadbhai Pujabhai Dabhi informed the complainant that a girl had
been found in an injured condition near the bus stand and
accordingly, the complainant went there and found that the girl was
her daughter. Upon examining the victim, the complainant noticed
bloodstains on her private part and on her clothes. Thereafter, the
complainant and one Vasantbhai took the victim in injured condition
to the nearest hospital. Upon examining her, the doctor advised them
to take her to Ahmedabad for better treatment. Accordingly, the
victim was taken to the concerned hospital at Ahmedabad, where she
was admitted as an indoor patient for a period of ten days. When the
doctor inquired about the injuries, the victim did not disclose anything
about the alleged incident but stated that she had fallen down while
playing, she sustained the injuries. Thus, at the time of referring the
victim to the V. S. Hospital, Ahmedabad, neither the complainant nor
the other persons accompanying her were aware of the alleged
incident and consequently, no such history was given to the
concerned doctor. Considering these facts, it emerges that the FIR
came to be lodged after a considerable delay.
11. On perusal of the deposition of P.W.2 – Manjulaben Thakorbhai
Patel, the mother of the victim, it appears that she deposed that the
victim was admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient for a period of
ten days and continued to take treatment for about one month. She
further stated that after about one month, when the victim was
outside the house to brush her teeth, she saw a boy i.e. the
respondent herein, passing through their house, at that time, the
victim informed her mother that he was the person who had taken her
away and committed rape upon her. Consequently, the FIR came to be
lodged after about four days. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
concerned, neither the complainant nor the concerned Investigating
Officer offered any satisfactory explanation for such delay in their
respective depositions.
12. So far as the identification of the accused is concerned, the
same creates serious doubt. On perusal of the testimonies of the
victim and the complainant, it emerges that the prosecution has failed
to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identification of the accused
in the Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) conducted by the
Magistrate. It further appears that the Investigating Officer did not
properly follow the prescribed procedure while conducting the T.I.
Parade and the Executive Magistrate also failed to comply with the
mandatory requirements of law.
13. On perusal of the deposition of P.W.10 – Dr. Premal Jashvantlal
Shah, it appears that this doctor admitted that as per the history
given by the victim, she sustained the injuries after falling down while
playing. The victim had not disclosed any details regarding the
alleged incident as narrated by the complainant.
14. On perusal of the depositions of P.W.15 – Jayeshkumar Jashubhai
Patel and P.W.16 – Bipinbhai Mohanbhai, who had taken the victim to
the nearest hospital at Village Navagam, it appears that both
witnesses admitted that the victim had informed the doctor that she
had sustained the injuries while playing.
15. On perusal of the deposition of the independent witness,
Indiraben Ashabhai (P.W.12), it appears that she stated that when she
saw the victim and inquired about her injuries, the victim informed her
that she had fallen down while playing and consequently sustained
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
the injuries.
16. So far as the panch witnesses are concerned, they have not
supported the case of the prosecution and they were, therefore,
declared hostile.
17. We have also examined the scientific evidence including the
serological report and the other documentary evidence on record. It
appears that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent
evidence connecting the accused with the crime in question. The
serological report reveals that the prosecution had not collected the
blood samples either of the victim or the accused. Consequently, the
prosecution has failed to establish the necessary link connecting the
accused with the alleged crime and has also failed to prove his
involvement in the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. In view
of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that the
learned Sessions Judge has discussed the facts and circumstances of
the case in detail and after appreciating the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses, recorded reasons in Paragraphs 6 to 10 and
thereafter, in Paragraph 11 onwards, explained the reasons for not
accepting the prosecution case. The prosecution has also failed to
establish any fundamental fact through independent evidence
connecting the accused with the crime in question. In the absence of
cogent and reliable evidence establishing the involvement of the
accused, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the charges
beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge, after
considering the relevant circumstances including the considerable
delay in lodging the FIR, the inconsistent history given by the victim
before the doctors at the initial stage of treatment, the identification
of the accused in the T.I. Parade is doubtful and in the absence of any
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
clinching evidence, the learned Sessions Judge rightly concluded that
the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the history given by the
victim before the first doctor and subsequently before the other
doctor is concerned, she did not disclose anything regarding the
alleged offence committed by the accused. Further, the manner in
which the T.I. Parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer also
creates serious doubt as the prescribed precautions and procedure
were not duly followed. In the absence of any clinching evidence
against the accused, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the
aforesaid discussion and the evidence on record, we are of the opinion
that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error of fact or
law in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. We do
not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned
judgment and order warranting interference by this Court.
18. 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.
19. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
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.
20. 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 13 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
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.
21. 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
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
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.”
22. 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. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order,
it clearly transpires that the learned Sessions Judge 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
him. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026

R/CR.A/500/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240325621998)
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions judge 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 merit and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge
is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:00:52 IST 2026