Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kamlesh Keshubhai @ Kalubhai Solanki on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 23/03/2026
Pronounced On : 08/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1997 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KAMLESH KESHUBHAI @ KALUBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.08.2010, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, Dist- Rajkot in
Sessions Case No.52/2008, for the offences punishable under
Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant
– State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the
Code”).
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial
before the trial Court is that the complainant was residing
with his family, including his son’s daughter Nitaben. On
21.10.2007, it is alleged that Nitaben was burnt inside her
house and was thereafter taken to the hospital, where she
Page 1 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
succumbed to burn injuries. It is further the case of the
prosecution that prior to the incident, certain accused persons
had allegedly threatened Nitaben and her family members,
and despite such intimidation, no effective protection or
assistance was provided. Therefore, the complaint was filed
against the respondent/s-accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence
was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-
sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the
offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to
be registered as Sessions Case No.52/2008. The charge was
framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not
guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined 7 witnesses and also produced 14 documentary
evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the
impugned judgment are as under;
Oral evidences
Exh. Name of Witness Particulars
Sr. No. No.
1. 13 Dr. Premjibhai Bhurabhai Doctor who conducted the post-
Nariya mortem
2. 17 Jabuben Mudjibhai Complainant
Page 2 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
3. 19 Baldev Prabhulal Kavadiya Executive Magistrate, who
recorded the dying declaration
4. 22 Shamjibhai Mudjibhai Witness
5. 23 Parsottam Ravjibhai Chauhan Witness
6. 24 Dr. Hitesh Prabhulal Dhruv Doctor who examined the injured
and provided first aid primary
treatment
7. 26 Jayantilal Jethalal Chaudhary Investigating Officer
Documentary Evidences
Sr. No. Exh. Particulars Date
No.
1. 14 Yadi for performing post-mortem. 21/10/2007
2. 15 Post-mortem report. 21/10/2007
3. 18 Complaint. 20/12/2007
4. 20 Yadi for taking death declaration. 19/10/2007
5. 21 Dying Declaration of the deceased. 19/10/2007
6. 25 Death certificate. 21/10/2007
7. 28 Inquest panchnama. 21/10/2007
8. 29 Application for registering the 20/12/2007
offence.
9. 30 Inquest panchnama. 21/10/2007
10 31 Post-mortem report. 21/10/2007
11 32 Panchnama of the scene of offence. 21/10/2007
12 33 Arrest panchnama of the accused. 11/02/2008
13 34 Panchnama of search of Ravjibhai 24/02/2008
Harjibhai.
14 35 Panchnama of search of Lalubhai 24/02/2008
Arjanbhai.
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis
of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial
Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the
Page 3 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has
pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court
through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before
the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and
perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in
acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial
Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the
contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and
ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the
accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that
the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It
is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen
that the evidence produced on record is reliable and
believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,
therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by
appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the
respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by
Page 4 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned
trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal
by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and
dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with
the Court:
8.1 In view of the Death Certificate, that has been
placed on record of Respondent No 2 and 4, the present
appeal survives only against Respondent No’s 1 and 3. The
prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint produced vide
Exh-18, dated 20.12.2007. It is the case of the prosecution
that because of the constant harassment of the accused,
deceased Nitaben Ravjibhai Chauhan poured kerosene upon
herself on 19.10.2007, and succumbed to the said injury and
expired on 21.10.2007. It is the case of the prosecution that
on 19.10.2007 when the complainant asked the deceased as to
Page 5 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
why she poured kerosene upon herself at that time the
deceased had informed the complainant that when she used
to come to the factory for work at that time the accused had
threatened her, and because of the said threats deceased had
committed suicide. The deceased happens to be the
grandchildren of the complainant, after the deceased poured
kerosene and lit herself the deceased was taken to the
hospital Dr. Hitesh Dhruv, and the Yadi was sent by A.S.I.
A Division Police Station, Rajkot, to the Executive Magistrate
for taking the dying declaration, wherein the doctor has
acknowledged that the patient is conscious. The dying
declaration is produced vide Exh-21, and the same is taken
at the hospital of Dr. Hitesh Dhruv on 19.10.2007, at 17.55
hours, and after the dying declaration is completed at 18:20
hours, the doctor put an endorsement that the patient was
conscious throughout the dying declaration taken on
19.10.2007 at 18:20 hours.
8.2 The prosecution has examined Executive Magistrate,
Baldev Kawaria as PW-3, who has stated that he had relied
on the opinion given by the treating doctor that the patient
i.e. the deceased, was fit to give dying declaration. He stated
Page 6 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
that he had reached the hospital at 17:45 hours. The
treating doctor, Dr. Hitesh Dhruv has been examined vide
Exh-24, as PW-6, he has stated that bandage was put all
over the burnt parts of the deceased and also on her hand
however, her fingers were open, and the said treating doctor
had also made an endorsement on the Yadi, and had signed
the dying declaration.
8.3 The prosecution has examined Dr. Premji Nariya
as PW-1, who had conducted the post-mortem on the
deceased, who has been examined vide Exh-30. The post-
mortem report is produced vide Exh-15, wherein the cause of
death is stated to be shock due to burns. In his deposition,
he has stated in his cross-examination that both the hands of
the deceased were burnt, and at the time when the post-
mortem was done, as per his opinion, the deceased was not
in a position to write with her burnt fingers.
8.4 The grandmother of the deceased and the
complainant Jabuben Mudjibhai has been examined as PW-2,
vide Exh-17 and in her cross-examination she has stated that
at the time when the incident had taken place she along
Page 7 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
with her son Ramji and Nita were present, and there was no
one else who was present, and deceased was present in the
house for the entire day, and she had not talked with
anyone in the house on the said date. She has also in her
cross-examination admitted that the accused were not present
at the time of incident and there was no occasion where
anybody would have scolded the accused. The said witness
has also stated that before the said incident there was no
complaint filed against the accused, and the deceased had not
informed the said witness that the accused were harassing
her. She has also stated that she is not aware as to why
the deceased poured kerosene upon herself and set herself
ablaze, and that she is not aware of the cause for which the
deceased had committed suicide.
8.5 The prosecution has therefore examined the uncle
of the deceased Shamji Mudji vide Exh-22, as PW-4, in his
deposition he has stated that he was not aware of any
harassment done by the accused on the deceased, but the
said facts have been informed by his wife. The prosecution
has not examined the wife of the said witness who has given
the said information. He has also stated in his cross
Page 8 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
examination that it is true that initially the deceased had
informed them about the incident, and thereafter, she was
taught as to what statement she has to give before the
Mamlatdar.
8.6 The cousin brother of the deceased
Purushottambhai has been examined as PW-5, vide Exh-23.
In his examination-in-chief he has stated that when he had
asked the deceased she had narrated about the harassment
of Accused No.1, and in his cross-examination the said
witness has stated that before the deceased had committed
suicide she had not informed the reason for committing
suicide nor he is aware of any such reason.
8.7 The P.S.I. Jayantibhai Chauhan has been
examined as PW-7, Exh-26, in his deposition he has stated
that in his investigation it was found that as the deceased
wanted to go for a pilgrimage to Pavagarh Temple, and as
she could not therefore, she committed suicide.
8.8 The Sessions Court while deciding the case has
rightly come to the conclusion that in the dying declaration
Page 9 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
produced vide Exh-21, the deceased had only given the name
of the Accused No.1, and it is only in the complaint for the
first time that the grandmother of the deceased has given
names of the Respondent No. 2-4.
8.9 The doctor who had conducted the post-mortem
report clearly states that the deceased had burnt her hands,
and was not in a position to write, and the treating doctor
has stated in his deposition that bandages were placed all
over the body of the deceased where she was burnt, but her
fingers were open and she could sign therefore, there are
contradictions in the deposition of the treating doctor and the
doctor who had conducted the post-mortem.
8.10 Moreover, no justification has been given by the
prosecution for filing a complaint after a period of two
months. The alleged offence took place on 19.10.2007, the
deceased had died on 21.10.2007, and the complaint that has
been filed by the grandmother is dated 20.12.2007.
8.11 The complainant has herself stated that the
deceased had informed her about the said harassment, and
Page 10 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
that none of the accused were present at the time of the
incident. Moreover, no complaints have been filed by the
deceased of harassment done by the accused on the deceased.
It also transpires that the deceased was working, and there
is no previous complaint filed by the deceased against the
accused for harassment.
8.12 The only allegation that has been made is that
Accused No.1 was harassing the deceased, and wanted to
marry the deceased. Therefore, it also transpires that there
was some disturbance with the deceased with respect to
going for pilgrimage to Pavagarh Temple, but the same was
not fulfilled.
8.13 If the treating doctor i.e. Dr. Hitesh Dhruv’s
evidence is taken on record, he does not remember whether,
at the time when the dying declaration was taken any other
family members of the deceased were present at the said
time. Even from the evidence of the Investigating Officer,
who has been examined as Jayantilal Chaudhary vide Exh-26,
does not prove the offence against the accused.
Page 11 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
9. The evidence on record and the glaring omission
on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of
doubt that the order passed by the trial Court is as per law.
The trial Court has rightly held that there was no positive
evidence on record to prove that the accused by way of the
conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually aided
and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner
that it leaves no other option for the deceased but to commit
suicide. In the present case, the prosecution has also not
been able to prove the clear motive of the accused to commit
offence of abatement. There is also no close connection
between the accused’s action and the deceased’s choice to
commit suicide. In view of the said fact, the prosecution has
not been able to prove that the accused have stimulated the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.1 The prosecution has not proved that there was a
clear motive to commit the offence of abatement. The
prosecution has also not proved that the accused proceeded to
encourage and/or irritate the deceased through words or
insults and that the accused intended to urge the deceased to
end it all by committing suicide. The prosecution has also
not been able to prove the direct connection between the
incitement and committal of suicide. The prosecution has also
not been able to prove direct or indirect act of incitement to
Page 12 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
the commitment of suicide. The prosecution has also not been
able to prove by accusation of harassment without any
positive action on the part of the accused close to the time
of occurrence that led and forced the deceased to commit
suicide.
9.2 The present matter turns on whether the conduct
attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of
abetment of suicide. Therefore, read as a whole, it can be
said that mere occurrence of a suicide does not automatically
trigger rigours of the Section. The penal consequences under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code arise when the
prosecution is able to establish that the accused abetted and
had a role in provoking or facilitating that suicide. Therefore,
this twin test distinction is required to be borne in mind.
9.3 Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence,
is not a broad moral expression but a term of precise
statutory meaning. Section 107 IPC delineates its contours:
instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. Each of these
modes presupposes active involvement. The law does not
punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional
encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.
9.4 It is therefore not sufficient to show that the
Page 13 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant
treatment. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently underscored that routine
domestic disagreements, suspicion between spouses, or
episodes of harassment do not ipso facto amount to
instigation. Rigours of this Section intervene only where there
is clear evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link
between the accused’s conduct and the decision of the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.5 The concept of instigation demands something more
than mere reproach or accusation. It connotes an active
suggestion, an incitement, or conduct of such intensity that it
operates upon the mind of the victim and pushes him or her
toward this drastic and unfortunate step. The prosecution
therefore, must demonstrate either a deliberate intention to
drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct
in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally
indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists
on a live and immediate nexus between the acts complained
of and the suicide. A remote or generalized allegation is
insufficient. There must be evidence showing that the accused
engaged in conduct so closely connected in time and effect
with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to have
triggered the fatal act.
Page 14 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
9.6 No material has been brought on record
demonstrating any proximate act immediately preceding the
suicide which could be construed as instigation. Nor is there
evidence of a positive act amounting to intentional aid. The
essential ingredients of abetment -namely, culpable mental
state coupled with active or proximate conduct-are not
established.
9.7 On an overall assessment of the evidence, the
prosecution has failed to demonstrate the existence of the
foundational elements necessary to sustain a conviction under
Section 306 IPC.
10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment
lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional
doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. Instigation
is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
“an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it
is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being
Page 15 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.
10.1 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations
are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been
held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section
306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission
of said offence, person who is said to have abetted
commission of suicide must have played active role by act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of
suicide. It has been further observed that the act of
abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved
and established by prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy
requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or
by a continued course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that deceased was left with no other option,
except to commit suicide.
10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus
State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has been held
that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
Page 16 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms
of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.
10.3 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020)
15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306
and 107 of IPC, the Court held that conviction under Section
306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide.
10.4 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244,
it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the
part of the accused proximate to the date on which the
deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not
only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be
of such a nature that the deceased was left with no
alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.
11. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show
any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that
the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest
Page 17 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court
below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above
view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Court below was completely justified in passing
impugned judgment and order.
12. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial
Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence
connecting the accused with the incident and there are
contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that
the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive
of the accused behind the incident is not established. The
trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record
and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has
rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the
judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
“… This court has observed in Girija
Page 18 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the
view of the trial court on the evidence to
repeat the narration of the evidence or to
reiterate the reasons given by the trial
court expression of general agreement with
the reasons given by the Court the decision
of which is under appeal, will ordinarily
suffice.”
14. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the
reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the
discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
under:
“The powers of the High Court in an
appeal from order of acquittal to reassess
the evidence and reach its own conclusions
under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as
extensive as in any appeal against the
order of conviction. But as a rule of
prudence, it is desirable that the High
Page 19 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Court should give proper weight and
consideration to the view of the Trial Court
with regard to the credibility of the
witness, the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused, the right of the
accused to the benefit of any doubt and the
slowness of appellate Court in justifying a
finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who
had the advantage of seeing the witness. It
is settled law that if the main grounds on
which the lower Court has based its order
acquitting the accused are reasonable and
plausible, and the same cannot entirely and
effectively be dislodged or demolished, the
High Court should not disturb the order
of acquittal.”
16. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing
with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial
Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.
It is further observed that High Court’s interference in such
appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by
Page 20 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court
should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the
belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have
taken a different view.
17. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
“42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general
principles regarding powers of the appellate
court while dealing with an appeal against
an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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”, “goodPage 21 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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 emphasise 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
Page 22 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court.”
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in
the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s
State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held
in paragraph 24 as under:
“24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled
legal position that the interference with the
finding of acquittal recorded by the learned
trial Judge would be warranted by the High
Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers
from patent perversity; that the same is
based on a misreading/omission to consider
material evidence on record; and that no two
reasonable views are possible and only the
view consistent with the guilt of the accused
is possible from the evidence available on
record.”
19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
Page 23 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1997/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the
case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I
found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the
findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under
the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly
acquitted the respondent/s – accused for the elaborate reasons
stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the
view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the
acquittal.
21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same
deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record
& Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
ADITYA SINGH
Page 24 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:32 IST 2026