Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vinay @ Raju S/O Satyanarayan Mishra on 13 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VINAY @ RAJU S/O SATYANARAYAN MISHRA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No.
1
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4,6,7
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 13/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) against the judgment
and order dated 21.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, 2 nd Fast Track Court, Surat
(hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case
No.129 of 2008, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original
accused (respondents herein) from the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 306, 201, 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC‘ for short) read with Sections 3 and
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant
M.B. Parmar registered complaint against accused persons with
Katargam Police Station, which was registered as I-CR-No.165 of 2007
for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306, 201 and 114 of
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It
is the case of the prosecution that accused persons, with the help of
each other, during short marriage period of deceased Nituben, caused
physical and mental harassment to her by demanding dowry from
her, and thereby, induced her to commit suicide and pursuant to that
she committed suicide by strangling her neck.
2.2 On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was initiated
and after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence
against the respondents-accused persons, charge sheet was filed
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. As the
offences committed by the accused persons was exclusively triable by
the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of 209 of Criminal
Procedure Code, the learned Judge committed the case to the Court of
Sessions and the case was transferred and placed for trial before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, 2 nd Fast Track
Court, Surat, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.129 of
2008.
2.3 Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused persons for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 201 and 114 of
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The
accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be
tried.
Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026 undefined
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
P.W. No. Name of Witnesses Exhibit 1 Hiteshkumar Ratilal Patel 24 2 Saamantsinh Balvantsinh Champavat 26 3 Ramchandrasing Bhagvatiprasadsing Rajput 39 4 Janaksinh Gulabsinh Mahida 42 5 Amitsinh Mahendrasinh Rajput 44 6 Manharbhai Chhotubhai Patel 45 7 Malteshwari Omprakashsing Rajput 47 8 Ushaben Rajendersing 48 9 Roliben Rajendrabhai 49 10 Gitaben Ramkurar 50 11 Babubhai Budhiyabhai Rathod 51 12 Rameshbhai Maganbhai Patel 52 13 Sumanbhai Somabhai Dhodiyapatel 53 14 Kamtaprasad Gayaprasad Pande 60 15 Mohanbhai Bhavanbhai Parmar 68 16 Naraynsinh Bhavansinh 79 17 Himmatsinh Natversinh Rathod 81 18 Rajendra Kashinath Bhamre 87 19 Prabhakar Kushnaji 89
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the
following documentary evidence:-
Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit 1 Panchnama of place of offence 25 2 Seizure Panchnama of muddamal weapon 40 3 Panchnama of body condition of accused 43 Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026 undefined 4 Complaint (of PSI M.B. Parmar) 69 5 Police Station Telephone Wardhi 70 6 Suchi Patra 82 7 Original report of examination of place of offence of 83 FSL officer 8 Fax message sent by Kantaprasad Pandey from 88 Varanasi (U.P.)
5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that they are innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him / her /
them.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
8. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.Kunal Shah, learned counsel
for the respondents – accused at length.
9. Ms.Jhaveri, learned 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
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. Ms.Jhaveri, 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. While referring to the evidence
of the witnesses and the material collected against the accused,
Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that
the prosecution has established the case against the accused by
examining the witnesses, who have supported the case of the
prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and disbelieved
the evidence of these witnesses. She has submitted that the
witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, however,
the trial Court has not appreciated the same and passed the judgment
and order of acquittal which is illegal and unjust. She has submitted
that it is settled legal position that the evidence of a single witness is
sufficient for conviction if the same is reliable and trustworthy and in
the present case, though the evidence of all the witnesses are reliable
and trustworthy, without any cogent reason, the trial Court has
disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the witnesses.
9.1 According to Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have
imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present
appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal.
10. Per contra, Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the respondents –
Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026 undefined
accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has
submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and
fact in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them.
He has submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged against
the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
the trial Court 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 crime in question. He has prayed to confirm
the impugned judgment and dismiss the present appeal.
11. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as
under:-
(1) whether the trial Court is justified in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
led by the prosecution in recording the reasons.
(3) whether there is any illegality, irregularity or any perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone
through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
It is necessary to first examine the facts of the case. On 14.05.2007,
the PSI of Katargam Police Station was on duty from 14:00 hours to
20:00 hours. During that period, at about 15:50 hours, the PSO
informed him that he had received a message from ASI Pundlikbhai
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
through the Control Room. The PSO recorded the wardhi stating that a
message had been received from one Vrajmohan Pandey of Varanasi
from mobile number 93393582, informing that his sister, who was
married to respondent No. 1 and residing at Devikrupa Society, had
died due to the alleged demand for dowry made by the respondents-
accused. The information was communicated from Varanasi to Surat
through mobile number 9879450687. On the basis of the said
information, the investigation commenced, and the police proceeded
to the place where they were informed that the dead body of the
deceased had been taken to Ashwinikumar Crematorium, Varachha,
Surat. Upon reaching the crematorium, they were informed by the
persons present there that the dead body of the deceased, Nitaben,
had been brought by her husband, Vinay @ Raju. It was further
informed that her husband had stated that, since she had been
suffering from a stomach ailment, she had committed suicide. When
they saw the dead body, no injury marks were found on it. Therefore,
they did not raise any suspicion, did not ask for any medical
certificate, and proceeded with the cremation of the dead body.
Thereafter, the investigation commenced on the basis of such
information.
13. In light of the aforesaid facts, the evidence of PW-15, PW-16,
PW-17, and PW-18 is required to be examined. A perusal of the
evidence of these witnesses reveals that none of them has thrown
any light on the circumstances in which the incident occurred or as to
who was responsible for it. In the absence of any evidence
establishing whether the death of Nitaben was homicidal or suicidal,
the investigating agency was unable to collect any material on that
aspect. Consequently, in the absence of such evidence, the charges
levelled against the respondents for the offences punishable under
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
Sections 498A, 306, 201, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, read with
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, could not be
substantiated. Looking to the evidence of PW-14, Kantaprasad
Gayaprasad Pandey, at Exh. 60, who is the father of the deceased,
Nitaben, it is evident that he has not deposed the true and correct
facts before the trial Court. Several omissions and contradictions in
his evidence have been duly proved. PW-14 has stated that he
received a telephonic message regarding the incident. However, in
the same breath, he admitted before the trial Court that he himself
was not using a telephone and that only his son and other family
members were using one. Despite this material inconsistency, the
Investigating Officer failed to investigate this aspect. No call detail
records (CDRs) were obtained during the course of the investigation,
nor was any effort made to ascertain who was using the mobile phone
referred to in the report received by the office of the Police
Commissioner, Surat. This lapse in the investigation assumes
significance, as it leaves the prosecution’s version on this material
aspect unverified.
14. Even from the evidence of PW-14, it is evident that he has
merely alleged that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 demanded dowry, and
that respondent No. 2 used to instigate respondent No. 1 to make
such demands, particularly for a car, which the complainant’s family
was unable to provide. However, he has failed to specify when such a
demand was allegedly made, where it was made, or in whose
presence it was made. No particulars whatsoever have been furnished
in support of these allegations. Further, the mobile phone used by his
son was neither seized nor examined during the course of the
investigation. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish
from whom his son received the information or instructions regarding
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
the alleged incident. Moreover, in his cross-examination, PW-14 has
categorically admitted that several facts deposed to by him before the
trial Court were neither stated in his statement recorded during the
investigation nor mentioned in the FIR lodged at his instance. The
aforesaid material omissions, contradictions, and improvements in the
testimony of PW-14 were duly proved through the evidence of the
Investigating Officer. No independent witnesses, including the
neighbours, have supported the case of the prosecution. There is no
evidence worth the name collected by the Investigating Agency, nor
was any such evidence produced before the trial Court to substantiate
the charges levelled against the respondents. It is an admitted
position that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were residing at Surat, whereas
the remaining accused, i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 7, were residing in
Uttar Pradesh. However, the prosecution has failed to produce any
evidence to establish whether respondent Nos.3 to 7 had ever visited
Surat or, if so, when they had visited. The prosecution has further
failed to establish by what means, mode of communication, or
message they had allegedly instigated respondent Nos.1 and 2 or
communicated with them in relation to the alleged offence. The
prosecution has also failed to establish whether respondent Nos.3 to 7
were present at Surat or at Uttar Pradesh during the relevant period.
Further, no evidence has been produced to show whether respondent
Nos.1 to 7 were using any mobile phone connections or whether any
telephonic communication had taken place between them.
Consequently, there is no evidence on record to indicate who
informed the complainant or his family members, by what mode of
communication, or with what intention. These material deficiencies
create a serious doubt regarding the prosecution’s case.
15. The police have also admitted before the Trial Court that they
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
had not collected any evidence worth the name with regard to the
alleged telephone calls or even the Vardhi recorded at the Control
Room on the information allegedly furnished by one Vrajmohan
Pandey. Significantly, the prosecution has not examined Vrajmohan
Pandey, who had allegedly conveyed the said information to the
Control Room. PW-16, the Investigating Officer, has deposed that he
commenced the investigation on the basis of the information received
from the Control Room through the office of the Police Commissioner.
However, the evidence of PW-19, Prabhakar Krushnaji, at Exh. 89
reveals that he had received a fax message regarding the incident. He
has further admitted that his statement was never recorded by the
Investigating Officer, nor did he furnish a copy of the said fax
message to the Investigating Officer during the course of the
investigation. PW-19 has also referred to Telephone Vardhi No.451 of
2007 dated 14.05.2007, recording that at about 15:50 hours he had
received a message from the Control Room through ASI Pundlikbhai.
Despite the materiality of this information, the statement of ASI
Pundlikbhai was also not recorded by the Investigating Officer. These
lapses clearly demonstrate that the investigation was neither fair nor
complete, as material witnesses and crucial documentary evidence
relating to the initial source of information were neither collected nor
brought on record. It is also pertinent to note that the investigation
was initiated on the basis of a specific message received at the
Control Room from one Vrajmohan Pandey, who had sent a fax
message from Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. However, the said fax
message was not treated as the First Information Report (FIR), and
instead, the FIR was registered at the instance of Mr. M.B. Parmar,
PSI, Katargam. This also gave rise to the question as to whether the
first fax message/information received and recorded at the Control
Room ought to have been treated as the FIR, or whether the FIR
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
subsequently registered by the PSI was the valid FIR. No answer to
this issue was forthcoming.
16. The evidence of PW-16, Narayansinh Bhavansinh, who was
serving in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, ‘C’
Division, Surat, reveals that he received information pursuant to a
message transmitted by the Control Room. He further deposed before
the Trial Court that the same information had also been received by
the Katargam Police Station. Consequently, the police proceeded to
the Ashwinikumar Crematorium, where they made inquiries regarding
the cremation of the deceased, Nituben. However, apart from these
facts, nothing further was elicited from his testimony by the
prosecution. The evidence of PW-18, Rajendra Kashinath Bhamre, in
his cross-examination, specifically reveals that his statement was
never recorded by the Investigating Officer (I.O.), nor did the I.O.
collect the fax message from him. Under these circumstances, it is
evident that the investigation conducted by the I.O. was wholly casual
and lethargic, as the investigating agency failed to exercise due
diligence while investigating a serious offence. The evidence on
record discloses that the deceased, a married woman, committed
suicide within seven years of her marriage. The marriage had taken
place in the year 2014 in Uttar Pradesh, and only a few months prior
to the incident, the deceased had shifted to Surat along with her
husband. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the I.O. failed to
investigate whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were present at the
matrimonial home at the relevant time. Consequently, no worthwhile
evidence on this crucial aspect was brought on record. Furthermore,
the investigation was also deficient inasmuch as no effort was made
to ascertain whether the deceased was suffering from any ailment,
whether she was undergoing medical treatment, or whether she had
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
consulted any doctor prior to the incident. Under these circumstances,
the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal, as the prosecution failed to produce
any cogent evidence establishing a nexus between the accused and
the death of the deceased. The prosecution also failed to adduce any
evidence before the Trial Court from which it could reasonably infer
whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. In the absence of
reliable and convincing evidence establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Court could not have recorded a
finding of conviction. Accordingly, the order of acquittal does not
suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. Herein, in the
present case, except for PW-14, none of the family members of the
deceased, Nitaben, was examined as a witness to the alleged
incident. Further, no independent witnesses residing in the vicinity of
the deceased were either cited as witnesses or examined by the
prosecution. Under these circumstances, the trial Court rightly passed
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. In view of the above, I
am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error of
facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order and I do
not find any illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and order warranting interference by this Court.
17. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an Appellate Court
has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate
Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026 undefined
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
18. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while
exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which they are charged.
19. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in
[2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
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.
20. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general
principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs.
State of Karnataka , regarding the power of the appellate Court
while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal.
The principles read thus:
“42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order
of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling
reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than
to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of thePage 14 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
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 his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High
Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and
weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of
the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion
of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal
against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High
Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses
and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their
testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the
jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the
brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal,
resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing
the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the
Trial Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be
sustained.”
21. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
22. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
undefined
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.
23. 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.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 01:06:48 IST 2026
