Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Thakore Gandaji Jujarji on 16 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 500 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
THAKORE GANDAJI JUJARJI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 16/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-original complainant has preferred this
appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2012
passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana,
camp at Visnagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the Appellate
Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2011 whereby the
Appellate Court has quashed and set aside the order dated
30.09.2011 of conviction passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Vadnagar (hereinafter be referred tto
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
has the “Trial Court”) and acquitted the respondents accused
from the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 506(2),
114 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as the
“IPC“) r/w the provision of Section 135 of the Bombay Police
Act.
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the
complainant, Rahimbhai Savdibhai, was residing with his
family and was engaged in agriculture. He had two sons and
one daughter. The complainant had sold a buffalo to accused
No.1, Gandaji Thakore, a resident of Limbdi, for a
consideration of ₹9,751/-. Accused No.1 assured the
complainant that the amount would be paid within 15 days.
However, despite repeated demands made by the complainant
on 4-5 occasions, the accused failed to make the payment.
2.1 Consequently, on the date of the incident, the complainant
and his son went to the house of accused No.1 to demand the
outstanding amount. The accused became enraged and
assaulted the complainant’s son, stating that no payment
would be made. When the complainant intervened to rescue
his son, accused No.2, the son of accused No.1, inflicted an
axe blow on the complainant’s head, causing a serious
bleeding injury. The complainant was immediately shifted to
the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, a complaint was
lodged, which came to be registered as I-C.R. No.4/2002 with
Vadnagar Police Station, Mehsana, for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506(2) and 114 of the
IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
2.2 Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was
filed against the accused before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Mehsana. Since the offences were
triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.3 Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused at
Exh.10 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324,
506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay
Police Act. The statement of the respondent-accused was
recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC. The accused pleaded not
guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.
2.4 To prove its case the prosecution has examined 7
witnesses and produced 5 documentary evidence which read
as under:-
Oral Evidence (Witnesses)
Sr. No. Oral Evidence (Witnesses) Exhibit No.
1 Rahimbhai Savdibhai Momin (Complainant) Exh. 40
2 Gulambhai Rahimbhai Momin Exh. 42
3 Mohammadbhai Jalalbhai Momin Exh. 43
4 Ishwarji Javanji Dabhi Exh. 45 & 51
5 Gagaji Hiraji Thakor Exh. 48
6 Patel Sureshkumar Somabhai Exh. 59
7 Zala Rajuji Hamirji Exh. 64
Documentary Evidence
Sr. No. Documentary Evidence
1 Complaint (FIR)
2 Panchnama of the Place of Incident
3 Panchnama of recovery of Muddamal
4 Injury Certificate
5 Depute orderPage 3 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
2.5 Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court
by judgment and order dated 30.09.2011 passed in Criminal
Case No.214 of 2002 below Exh.81, convicted the respondent-
accused for the above mentioned offences.
2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of the Trial Court, the accused filed Criminal Appeal
before the Appellate Court being Criminal Appeal No.123 of
2011 whereby after appreciation of the evidence and after
considering relevant facts of the case, the learned Appellate
Court quashed and set aside order dated 30.09.2011 passed
by the learned Trial Court and acquitted the accused for the
above mentioned offence vide order dated 27.01.2012 in
Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2011.
2.7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order the Appellate Court, the appellant State has preferred
present appeal.
3. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant
and Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati, learned counsel for the
respondents accused. It is required to be noted herein that
vide order dated 16.06.2026, Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati, learned
counsel, was appointed by this Court as amicus curiae to
assist the Court in adjudicating the matter on behalf of the
respondent-accused. The Court appreciates the valuable
services rendered by Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati, learned counsel in
this regard.
4. Learned APP for the appellant has submitted that the order
of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is just, legal
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
and proper, and that the learned Trial Court has rightly
convicted the present respondents for the offence punishable
under Section 324 read with Section 104 of the IPC. It is
further submitted that, without properly appreciating the
facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, the learned Appellate Court has erroneously
reversed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. It
is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and
order passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal and
unjust, and deserves to be quashed and set aside, and that the
order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court deserves
to be confirmed.
4.1 Learned APP for the appellant has submitted that the
learned Appellate Court erred in holding that the prosecution
failed to prove the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay
Police Act, despite evidence showing that the accused
possessed prohibited weapons in violation of the notified
order. The finding is contrary to the evidence on record.
4.2 Learned APP for the appellant has submitted that the
learned Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the
evidence of PW-1, complainant Rahimbhai Savdibhai Momin
(Exh.40), and the FIR (Exh.41), both of which fully support the
prosecution case.
4.3 Learned APP for the appellant has submitted that the
learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the cogent and
reliable evidence of PW-2, Gulambhai Rahimbhai Momin, an
eyewitness, who fully corroborated the prosecution case. She
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
has submitted that the learned Trial Court ignored the
medical evidence of PW-6, Dr. Sureshkumar Somabhai
(Exh.59), and the Injury Certificate (Exh.60), which
corroborate the prosecution version.
4.4 Learned APP for the appellant has submitted that the
learned Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the
evidence of PW-7 and the panchnamas (Exhs.50 & 52), which
support the prosecution case.
4.5 Learned APP for the appellant has submitted that the
evidence of PW-1, PW-2, the medical evidence, and the
documentary exhibits clearly establish the prosecution case.
The learned Appellate Court erred in discarding this reliable
evidence without valid reasons. She has submitted that merely
because some witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution case
could not have been discarded and their evidence ought to
have been considered along with the evidence of the injured
eyewitnesses and the Investigating Officer.
4.6 Learned APP for the appellant has submitted that the
prosecution led reliable oral and documentary evidence
through eyewitnesses, injured witnesses, medical witnesses,
and official witnesses however, the learned Appellate Court
failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective.
4.7 Learned APP for the appellant has submitted that it is well
settled that conviction can be based on the testimony of a
single trustworthy witness. The learned Appellate Court erred
in disbelieving reliable evidence and acquitting the accused.
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
4.8 Learned APP for the appellant has submitted that the
learned Trial Court failed to exercise the powers vested in law
to ascertain the truth and prevent miscarriage of justice. She
has submitted that he impugned judgment of acquittal passed
by the Appellate Court is therefore illegal, erroneous, and
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the order passed by
the Trial Court deserves to be confirmed.
5. On the other hand learned advocate for the respondents
accused has supported the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned advocate
appearing for the respondents-accused submitted that the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Appellate Court is just, legal, and proper and does not
call for any interference by this Court. It was submitted that
the learned Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the oral
as well as documentary evidence available on record and has
recorded findings based on proper appreciation of facts and
settled principles of law.
5.1 Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that
the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the findings
recorded by the learned Appellate Court are based on cogent
reasons and are neither arbitrary nor contrary to law.
5.2 Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that
in an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings recorded by
the learned Appellate Court are perverse, illegal, or wholly
unsupported by evidence, interference by this Court is
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
unwarranted. In the present case, no such infirmity, illegality,
or perversity is demonstrated in the impugned judgment and
order. Therefore, it was urged that the appeal deserves to be
dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
deserves to be confirmed.
6. I have perused the relevant documents and material placed
on record. I have also gone through the judgment and order
passed by the trial Court.
7. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court, and upon close
examination of the depositions of the witnesses recorded by
the learned Trial Court, the issues that arise for determination
by this Court are as below:
While reversing the findings of the learned Trial Court
the learned Appellate Court has committed any error
while appreciating the evidence recorded by the learned
Trial Court?
Whether the learned Appellate Court has committed any
illegality or any perversity while passing the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal?
8. To examine the matter, it is necessary first to consider the
facts of the case. PW-1, the original complainant, has stated
before the Investigating Officer that he had sold one buffalo to
respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 9,751/-. It was agreed that
respondent No. 1 would pay the purchase price of the buffalo
within 15 days. However, despite repeated demands by the
complainant for payment of the outstanding amount,
respondent No. 1 failed to make the payment.
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
9. Consequently, on the day of the incident, the complainant,
accompanied by his son, visited Village Limbdi, Taluka
Kheralu, to demand the payment. During the ensuing
altercation, respondent No. 1 allegedly assaulted the
complainant’s son. When the complainant attempted to
intervene, respondent No. 2 allegedly struck the complainant
on the left side of his head with the reverse side of an axe. As
a result of the blow, the complainant became unconscious.
Thereafter, his son, along with other villagers, took the
injured complainant to the Kheralu Referral Hospital, where
he was treated by PW-6, Dr. Sureshbhai Somabhai Patel
(Exhibit 59). Subsequently, the complainant was discharged
from the said hospital and was thereafter referred to the
Mehsana Civil Hospital, where he was admitted as an indoor
patient and, after receiving treatment, was discharged.
10. Now, considering the case of the informant vis-Ã -vis the
evidence of his son, namely Gulambhai Rahimbhai Momin
(PW-2, Exhibit 42), read with the evidence of PW-6, Dr.
Sureshbhai Somabhai Patel (Exhibit 59), the story put forward
by the prosecution is completely demolished. In his deposition
at Exhibit 40, the informant (PW-1) stated in his examination-
in-chief that respondent No. 2 had struck him on the left side
of his head with the reverse side of an axe, as a result of
which he became unconscious. He further deposed that he
was immediately taken to the Kheralu Referral Hospital and
was thereafter referred to the Mehsana Civil Hospital for
further treatment. However, a perusal of the deposition of the
Investigating Officer reveals that no documentary evidence
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
regarding the treatment allegedly received by the
complainant at the Mehsana Civil Hospital was collected
during the course of the investigation, nor was any doctor
from the Mehsana Civil Hospital examined by the prosecution.
The informant further stated in his deposition that he
regained consciousness approximately three days after the
date of the incident and thereafter lodged the First
Information Report (Exhibit 41) on 12.01.2002. However,
when the evidence of his son, Gulambhai Rahimbhai Momin
(PW-2, Exhibit 42), is examined, it is evident that he has
materially exaggerated the prosecution case by stating that
his father regained consciousness only after about seven to
eight days and remained unconscious throughout his stay at
the Mehsana Civil Hospital. This version is completely
inconsistent with the medical evidence of PW-6, Dr.
Sureshbhai Somabhai Patel, whose deposition is contrary to
the aforesaid assertions.
11. On the contrary, PW-6, Dr. Sureshbhai Somabhai Patel,
has deposed that the complainant was conscious at the time of
examination and that no serious injury was noticed on the
head of PW-1. The prosecution has also alleged that the
complainant was subsequently referred to the Mehsana Civil
Hospital, where he remained admitted as an indoor patient. If
the complainant had in fact remained admitted as an indoor
patient even for a day or two, the medical records pertaining
to such treatment ought to have been collected by the
Investigating Officer and produced before the Court in
support of the prosecution case. The prosecution could also
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
have examined the doctor who treated the complainant at the
Mehsana Civil Hospital. However, no documentary evidence
whatsoever from the Mehsana Civil Hospital has been
produced before the Court, nor has any doctor from the said
hospital been examined. This omission assumes considerable
significance and creates a serious lacuna in the prosecution
case. PW-2, Gulambhai Rahimbhai Momin, has further stated
that he and his family are residents of Kheralu and that they
do not ordinarily visit Village Limbdi. Consequently, he was
not acquainted with any person residing in Village Limbdi.
Despite this, the Investigating Officer did not conduct any test
identification parade during the course of the investigation.
On the contrary, PW-2 admitted in his cross-examination that
he did not know the respondent-accused prior to the incident.
He further stated that, since he had been frequently attending
the Court proceedings along with his father for the purpose of
the trial, he had seen the respondents in Court and, on that
basis, identified them as the accused. Such an identification
made for the first time in Court, without any prior test
identification parade, loses much of its evidentiary value.
12. Even if the deposition of the Investigating Officer, PW-7, is
carefully perused, it becomes evident that the prosecution
case suffers from serious infirmities. PW-7 deposed that, at
the relevant time, he was posted at the Sipor Outpost Police
Station under Vadnagar Police Station. He stated that a
written complaint had been received by the concerned Police
Station Officer (PSO), on the basis of which C.R. No. I-4 of
2002 came to be registered for the offences punishable under
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
Sections 324, 323, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC
and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Pursuant to the
orders of the PSO, he took over the investigation of the case.
13. The Investigating Officer further deposed that he had
received the medical certificate issued by the Kheralu Referral
Hospital. However, he remained completely silent regarding
the treatment allegedly received by the injured complainant at
the Mehsana Civil Hospital. He neither collected any medical
records relating to the treatment of PW-1 at the Mehsana Civil
Hospital nor recorded the statement of any doctor or other
witness attached to the said hospital. This omission assumes
significance, particularly when the prosecution case is that
the complainant remained admitted there as an indoor
patient.
14. In his cross-examination, PW-7 candidly admitted that he
had not recorded the statements of any independent
witnesses from Village Limbdi, where the alleged incident had
taken place. According to the prosecution witnesses
themselves, several persons had gathered at the place of
occurrence and had attempted to intervene during the
incident. Despite the availability of such independent
witnesses, the Investigating Officer failed to record the
statement of a single resident of Village Limbdi. This serious
lapse in the investigation lends considerable support to the
defence contention that the prosecution case is a concocted
one.
15. Despite these glaring lacunae and shortcomings in the
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
prosecution evidence, the learned Trial Court proceeded to
convict the present respondents. Aggrieved by the said
judgment of conviction, the respondents-accused preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2011 before the learned Appellate
Court at Mehsana. The appellate court, upon a proper re-
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced
before the learned Trial Court, took note of these material
loopholes and deficiencies in the prosecution case and
discussed them in detail from paragraph 7 onwards of its
judgment.
16. The appellate court further observed that, although the
alleged incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of
Kheralu and the prosecution witnesses were also residents of
Kheralu, the offence came to be registered at Vadnagar. The
prosecution failed to offer any explanation as to why the FIR
was registered at Vadnagar instead of the police station
having territorial jurisdiction over the place of occurrence,
namely Kheralu. No satisfactory explanation was forthcoming
from the prosecution, nor did the learned Trial Court address
this aspect while recording the order of conviction.
17. The appellate court further observed in paragraph 10 of
its judgment that it was the specific case of the informant that
respondent No. 2 had inflicted a blow with the reverse side of
an axe on the left side of his head. However, PW-6, Dr.
Sureshbhai Somabhai Patel, categorically deposed that the
injury found on the complainant’s head was not possible by
the reverse side of an axe. Despite this clear and material
medical evidence, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
the inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence
and nevertheless proceeded to convict the respondents.
Taking into consideration this vital aspect, along with the
other material deficiencies in the prosecution case, the
appellate court rightly reversed the findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court.
18. The appellate court also took note of another material
contradiction in the prosecution evidence. The informant (PW-
1) stated in his deposition that he had remained unconscious
for about three days after the incident. However, PW-2, the
son of the informant, materially exaggerated the prosecution
case by deposing that his father remained unconscious for six
to seven days and that he himself had lodged the First
Information Report. This version is completely contrary to the
documentary evidence on record. A perusal of the FIR (Exhibit
41) clearly shows that it was lodged by the informant himself
and not by PW-2. This constitutes a significant contradiction
affecting the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
19. These material discrepancies, contradictions, and
omissions were clearly borne out from the evidence led before
the learned Trial Court. However, the learned Trial Court
failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and
erroneously recorded the conviction of the present
respondents. The learned appellate court, upon a thorough re-
appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly interfered with
the judgment of conviction and acquitted the respondents. I
do not find any illegality, irregularity, perversity, or manifest
error in the findings recorded by the appellate court
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
warranting interference in the present proceedings.
Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment
and order passed by the learned appellate court deserve to be
confirmed.
20. Further, on perusal of the record of the appeal, it
transpires that the respondent-accused established innocence
before the learned Trial Court and that, after due appreciation
of the oral as well as documentary evidence and other
material placed on record, the learned Trial Court has rightly
passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are just, proper
and in accordance with the settled principles of law and,
therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.
21. 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.
22. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
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 he is charged.
23. 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
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar
Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 =
(2024) 8 SCC 149, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with
the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to
40. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings
recorded by the trial Court.
24. 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.
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High
Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and
weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the
Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of
guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal
against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High
Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses
and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their
testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the
jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the
brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal,
resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing
the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial
Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
25. 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.
26. 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
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/500/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the
trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
27. In view of the above, the 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 Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 20:37:23 IST 2026
