Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pravinbhai Kishanbhai @ Karsanbhai … on 24 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 559 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVINBHAI KISHANBHAI @ KARSANBHAI RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
ANAND S TAILOR(9021) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 24/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2012
passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Ahmedabad (Rural) (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial
Court”) in Sessions Case No. 163 of 2010 whereby the Trial
Court has acquitted the respondents accused from the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter be referred to as the “IPC“).
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the
complainant, Pokhraj Bhavarlal Bavari, the brother of the
deceased Lataben, lodged a complaint against the accused
persons at Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad, which came to
be registered as I-C.R. No. 369 of 2010 for the above stated
offences.
2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the
deceased Lataben was solemnized with accused No.1
Pravinbhai. Accused No.2, Kishanbhai @ Karsanbhai
Ishwarbhai Rathod, is the father-in-law of the deceased, and
accused No.3, Mathraben W/o. Kishanbhai Ishwarbhai
Rathod, is her mother-in-law.
2.2 After the marriage, the deceased started residing at her
matrimonial home with the accused persons. It is alleged that
she did not spend even a single day happily after the
marriage, as the accused persons immediately started
subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. Accused No.3
allegedly instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 against the
deceased, and accused No.1, while under the influence of
liquor, subjected her to physical and mental harassment.
Being frustrated by the continuous cruelty and harassment, on
09.06.2010, the deceased committed suicide by hanging
herself from the ceiling fan. Consequently, the complainant
lodged the complaint.
2.3 On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was
initiated. Upon completion of the investigation, as sufficient
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
evidence was found against the accused persons, a charge-
sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural). Since the offences were
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned
Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was
thereafter transferred to the Court of the Learned Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) and registered
as Sessions Case No. 163 of 2010.
2.4 Charges under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the IPC
were framed against the accused persons at Exh.6. They
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution,
therefore, led evidence by examining 11 witnesses and
producing 15 documentary exhibits.
2.5 Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court by the
impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused
persons, from the above mentioned offences.
3. Heard Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned APP and Mr. Anand Tailor,
learned counsel for the respondents (on virtual mode).
4. After considering the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court, and after perusal
of the deposition of the witnesses recorded by the learned
Trial Court, Ms. Bhatt, learned APP for the State has
contended that the learned Trial Court while passing the
impugned judgment and order has committed serious error by
appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence led
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
before the learned Trial Court, and thus relying upon the said
evidence, the impugned order was passed is bad in law,
erroneous, and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside
and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
4.1 It is also further contended by the Ms. Bhatt, learned APP
that the impugned judgment and order is suffered from a
serious error of law and on facts, while discarding the
evidence of the witnesses by the learned Trial Court
4.2 It was further contended that the duration of the marriage
was only 27 days. The deceased, Lataben, married respondent
No. 1 on 16.05.2010. Thereafter, on 17.05.2010, they
returned to Ahmedabad, and on 09.06.2010, the deceased
committed suicide by hanging herself. Thus, within a short
span of 27 days of the marriage, the deceased ended her life.
Therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have drawn the
statutory presumption against the present respondents under
Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, as the
circumstances indicated that the deceased had been subjected
to mental and physical cruelty and harassment by them.
4.3 Despite the aforesaid facts having emerged on record
during the examination of the witnesses, the learned Trial
Court failed to appreciate and consider the evidence in its
proper perspective while passing the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court ignored the
material evidence and the statutory presumptions applicable
to the facts of the case. Consequently, the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal is contrary to law, unsustainable, and
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the present
appeal deserves to be allowed.
5. As against that, Mr. Tailor, learned counsel for the
respondents has pointed out that the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the case against the present respondents
through cogent and clinching evidence produced before the
learned Trial Court. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has
rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
5.1 Mr. Tailor, learned counsel for the respondents, further
submitted that the prosecution witnesses have exaggerated
the prosecution case and that material omissions and
contradictions have been duly proved through the deposition
of the Investigating Officer.
5.2 Mr. Tailor further submitted that, although the
prosecution witnesses deposed before the Trial Court that
several injury marks were found on the body of the deceased,
the evidence of PW-1, Dr. Digvijay Vaghela, at Exhibit 11,
clearly reveals that, except for the ligature mark on the neck,
no external or internal injuries were found on the body of the
deceased, Lataben. This clearly demonstrates that the version
of the prosecution witnesses is unreliable and unworthy of
credence. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly
discarded and disbelieved such evidence and has committed
no error while passing the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal.
5.3 Learned counsel for the respondents further pointed out
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
that the First Information Report (FIR), lodged by the brother
of the deceased, namely, Pokhraj Bhanvarlal Bawari, was filed
after an unexplained delay of two days. Although the
complainant and his family had reached Ahmedabad
immediately on 09.06.2010, they chose to take the dead body
to their native place at Jodhpur and, after performing the last
rites of the deceased, lodged the FIR only on 11.06.2010. No
explanation whatsoever has been offered by the complainant
for such delay. Furthermore, it has not emerged from the
evidence of the Investigating Officer that any inquiry or
investigation was conducted regarding the reason for the
delay in lodging the FIR.
5.4 It was, therefore, submitted that, in view of the material
omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, coupled with the unexplained delay in
lodging the FIR, the prosecution has failed to prove the
6. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court, 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 learned Trial Court committed any error in
passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal?
Whether the learned 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?
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
7. Now, in light of the above-stated facts and the
aforementioned issues, let us first examine the facts of the
case. The deceased, Lataben, was married to Respondent No.
1 on 16.05.2010, and after the marriage, they returned to
Ahmedabad on 17.05.2010. Immediately after 6 to 7 days, the
relatives of the deceased came to Ahmedabad, and thereafter
they visited several places. During these visits, Respondent
No. 3 accompanied the relatives of the deceased. The younger
brother of the deceased, Rahul, was also present with them.
They left for Jodhpur a few days prior; however, Rahul again
visited the residence of the deceased and subsequently
returned to Jodhpur along with his mother on 08.06.2010, just
a day before the incident.
8. When they were leaving for Jodhpur, the deceased
expressed her intention to go with her mother and brother.
However, her mother declined, advising the deceased that
since she was now married in Ahmedabad, she ought to reside
in Ahmedabad. On 09.06.2010, the deceased committed
suicide by hanging herself.
9. Initially, an accidental death entry was registered at the
Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad, bearing Entry No. 21 of
2010. Upon recording the accidental death entry, PW-10,
namely Maganbhai Kalabhai Makwana (who was serving as
PSI), received information while on duty. On receiving the
said information, he immediately reached the scene of the
incident and investigated the accidental death. He drew the
inquest panchnama, prepared the panchnama of the scene of
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
the offense, and recorded the statements of the witnesses.
10. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged by PW-4, Pokhraj
Bhanvarlal Bawari, at Exhibit 24. He submitted a written
complaint before the Satellite Police Station seeking
registration of an FIR against the respondents for offenses
punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section
114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The detailed allegations
set out in the written complaint–which was recorded as the
FIR–state that Respondent No. 1 (husband of the deceased)
was addicted to alcohol, leading to frequent quarrels between
the couple. It was further alleged that Respondent Nos. 2 and
3 (the parents of Respondent No. 1) instigated Respondent
No. 1, and upon such instigation, the husband subjected the
deceased to mental and physical torture, harassment, and
frequent beatings.
11. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR was registered.
PW-11 investigated the offense and submitted a charge-sheet
before the learned Magistrate. Since the alleged offenses are
exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court and registered as Sessions
Case No. 163 of 2010. Upon receipt of the case papers, the
learned Trial Court framed charges against the respondents at
Exhibit 6 for the aforementioned offenses.
12. To prove its case, the prosecution adduced both oral and
documentary evidence, examining a total of 11 witnesses: PW-
1: Medical Officer / Doctor, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4: Panch
witnesses, PW-5 and PW-6: Brothers of the deceased, PW-7:
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
Uncle of the deceased, PW-8: Sister of the deceased, PW-10
and PW-11: Police witnesses / Investigating Officers
13. Upon a perusal of the depositions of the relative witnesses
specifically PW-5, PW-6, and PW-8–material contradictions,
omissions, and serious discrepancies were brought on record
and proved through the cross-examination of the Investigating
Officer.
14. Even a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-8 reveals that
up to 08.06.2010, the deceased was in the company of PW-8,
PW-6, and other relatives, and it was only on 08.06.2010 that
they left Ahmedabad along with the mother.
15. Furthermore, from the deposition of PW-6, it is revealed
that he did not personally witness any of the accused
subjecting the deceased to physical or mental torture. He also
admitted to not having seen Respondent No. 1 in an
intoxicated state. He further stated before the court that
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 never inflicted physical or mental
torture upon the deceased, nor did they taunt her. Therefore,
an examination of these witnesses clearly brings out the fact
that the allegations leveled against the respondents stand
completely falsified.
16. In addition, PW-5 and PW-8 specifically asserted before
the Investigating Officer as well as the court that they
observed severe injuries on the body of the deceased.
However, this assertion is completely contradicted by the
medical evidence. PW-1 (Dr. Vaghela), in his deposition at
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
Exhibit 11 (relevant cross-examination at page 181 of the
paper-book), specifically stated before the court that no
external or internal injuries or marks were found on the body
of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he categorically
reiterated that no such internal or external injuries were
present. Thus, the testimony of PW-5 and PW-8 is rendered
entirely unsubstantiated and contrary to the medical record.
Lastly, there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, for
which neither the informant nor the Investigating Officer
rendered any explanation whatsoever.
17. It is also borne out from the evidence of the witnesses that
on 09.06.2010, after the post-mortem was conducted, the
dead body was handed over to the family members of the
deceased at Ahmedabad. A decision was then taken by the
informant and his family members not to allow the
respondents to perform the cremation ceremony at
Ahmedabad, insisting instead that the last rites be performed
at Jodhpur. Consequently, they transported the body to
Jodhpur. Indeed, the evidence reveals that on account of the
dispute regarding the cremation, it was only after the
intervention and persuasion of the Investigating Officer, PW-
10 (Mr. Makwana), that the body was handed over to the
informant and his family members.
18. Upon an appreciation of the overall prosecution evidence,
the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that any form
of ill-treatment or harassment was inflicted upon the deceased
at the hands of the present respondents. On the contrary, the
testimony of the Investigating Officer reveals that the
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
deceased had hardly resided with the respondents for 4 to 5
days at Ahmedabad. In light of these facts and the evidence on
record, even the basic ingredients of Sections 113A and 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Sections 498A, 306, and
107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), are not satisfied.
19. A close examination of the evidence of PW-6 (Rahul,
younger brother of the deceased) completely washes away the
story put forward by PW-5 (Pokhrajbhai, elder brother of the
deceased), rendering the prosecution incapable of proving the
charges against the respondents under Sections 498A and 306
read with Section 107 of the IPC.
20. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-10 reveals that when the
deceased committed suicide, she was likely alone, as no one
else was present in the house. The main door was locked from
the inside and had to be opened with the assistance of
neighbors, after which the body was untied from the cloth
used for hanging. The deceased used her dupatta to commit
the act, which had been cut from the middle; those pieces of
cloth were subsequently recovered from the scene of the
incident during investigation. Under these circumstances, it is
evident that none of the respondents were present in the
house, and the deceased committed suicide in their absence.
21. From the prosecution’s own evidence, it appears that the
deceased did not wish to reside in Ahmedabad with the
respondents and committed the act for that reason. When PW-
6 (Rahul) was questioned on this aspect, he admitted that
when the deceased expressed her desire to return to Jodhpur,
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
her mother advised her that she could not return to Jodhpur,
as she was married in Ahmedabad and ought to reside there
with her husband. Therefore, under such circumstances, it
appears that the deceased committed suicide not due to any
alleged ill-treatment or harassment by the respondents, but
because she wished to remain at Jodhpur rather than stay at
Ahmedabad.
22. 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
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.
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
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
the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860).]
23. So far as section 498-A of 306 IPC and 113 of Evidence
Act 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
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
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.
24. On perusal of the record of the appeal, it transpires that
the respondents-accused has established his 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.
25. 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
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
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.
26. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal
against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not
ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest
illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at
by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are
possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which
would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below.
However, the Appellate Court 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.
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
27. 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
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.
28. 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.
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling
reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court
in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of
an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the
power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court pointed out that it would be essential 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.”
29. 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
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/559/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
undefined
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.
30. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it
clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any
error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record
and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled
against them. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it
clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
31. 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 18 of 18
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 21:04:20 IST 2026
