Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mukeshbhai Parmabhai Chauhan on 9 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2181 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MUKESHBHAI PARMABHAI CHAUHAN & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI(3227) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4,5,7
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 09/07/2026
ORAL 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 24.09.2010 passed by the learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter be
referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.96 of 2009,
whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused
(respondents herein) from the offences punishable under Sections
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
306, 498(A), 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter be referred
to as “the IPC“] and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant
being brother of Jyotsnaben was residing at Village: Virpur, Taluka:
Palanpur had lodged the FIR against the respondents i.e. husband,
father-in-law and mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of
Jyotsnaben alleging that the accused were giving mental nad physical
harassment and torture to Jyotsnaben and accused No.1 demanded
amount as he was suffering from diabetics and for treatment, he
demanded the amount from the mother of the complainant and on 3-
4 occasions when Jyotsnaben visited her parental home she informed
about ill-treatment and harassment caused to her and also informed
about the demand made by accused No.1, 2 and 3 and on account of
which, Jyotsnaben has committed suicide by pouring kerosene and
ignited herself and initially, the entry of accidental death was posted
at Gadh Police Station being C.R.No.6/2009 by one Dineshbhai
Chauhan and on the basis of A.D. entry, the complaint being C.R. No.I
– 49/2009 was lodged by the complainant before Gadh Police Station
for the aforesaid offences. The police prepared panchnama of the
scene of offence and after preparing the arrest panchnama, the
accused came to be arrested. On completion of investigation, charge
sheet was submitted into the Court of learned J.M.F.C.2.1 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court vide Exhibit 8 for the aforesaid offences against the accused.
On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having
committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge
and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
Additional Sessions Judge.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the nine witnesses and in addition to this,
the prosecution has also produced the documentary evidence.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
7. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.Sanjay Prajapati, learned
counsel for the respondents – accused at length.
8. 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
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
order of acquittal. 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, 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. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor 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. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has submitted that it is settled legal position that the
evidence of a single witness is sufficient for conviction if the same is
reliable and trustworthy and in the present case, though the evidence
of all the witnesses are reliable and trustworthy, without any cogent
reason, the trial Court has disbelieved and discarded the evidence of
the witnesses.
8.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that
the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on
record, based on erroneous appreciation of material evidence, and
has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in law, thereby
calling for interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
that the learned Trial Court has materially erred in holding that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
the findings recorded by the trial Court were therefore perverse,
illegal, and contrary to the evidence on record.
8.2 According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court
ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed
necessary sentence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed
to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – 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.
Learned counsel for the respondents – accused 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. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
evidence led by the prosecution suffers from material contradictions,
omissions, and inconsistencies, which create serious doubt about the
veracity of the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to
establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and has not
produced reliable, trustworthy, and corroborative evidence connecting
the respondent with the commission of the alleged offence. Learned
counsel for the respondent/s has submitted that it is a settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
in favour of an accused is further strengthened by an order of
acquittal. It is submitted that unless the findings recorded by the trial
Court are shown to be perverse, illegal, or contrary to the evidence on
record, the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with an order
of acquittal. It is submitted that the appellant has failed to point out
any infirmity, illegality, perversity, or misreading of evidence in the
impugned judgment and order and the findings recorded by the
learned trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of the
evidence and settled legal principles. Learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves
to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
deserves to be confirmed.
10. 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 has rightly 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 and perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
11. The Court first considered the factual background of the case.
The complainant, who was the brother of the deceased Jyotsnaben
and resided at Virpur, lodged an FIR against her husband, parents-in-
law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law. It was alleged that the accused
had subjected Jyotsnaben to mental and physical cruelty, and that her
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
husband, who was suffering from diabetes, demanded money from
her maternal family for his treatment. According to the complainant,
Jyotsnaben had informed her family on several occasions about the
harassment and the monetary demands made by her husband and
parents-in-law. Unable to bear the alleged cruelty, she allegedly
committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself
ablaze. Initially, however, the incident was registered only as an
accidental death (A.D. No. 6/2009) at Gadh Police Station, and an
investigation was conducted accordingly. During that investigation, no
complaint alleging harassment, dowry demand, or murder was made
by the complainant or any family member. After the cremation, the
complainant consulted his relatives and submitted a written complaint
to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, asserting that the case was
one of murder under Section 302 IPC rather than suicide. Thereafter,
the present FIR was registered, and an investigation commenced.
During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and produced
documentary evidence. The principal witnesses were the complainant
(PW-1), the deceased’s maternal uncle (PW-2), and her mother (PW-
3). The Trial Court observed that no independent witnesses from the
village where the deceased resided with her in-laws were examined,
despite their availability. The complainant and his family members
resided in different village. The Trial Court further noted that when the
complainant first learned of the incident, he went directly to the
hospital, and during the initial accidental death investigation, neither
he nor any family member raised allegations of harassment or dowry
demand. These allegations surfaced only later in the subsequent FIR.
On examining the complainant’s testimony, the Trial Court found that
he had failed to specify the nature or manner of the alleged
harassment. He also admitted that the deceased and her husband
were living separately from the other accused persons, a fact that was
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
not disclosed in the FIR and, therefore, the Trial Court had considered
the omission and contradiction. The evidence of the Investigating
Officer (PW-10) further revealed that, at the time of the incident, the
deceased’s relatives were not present. Instead, two independent
persons, Mukeshbhai Ugarabhai Parmar and Pravinbhai Madhabhai
Metraniya, who were working nearby, had rushed to rescue the
deceased. Although the Investigating Officer had recorded their
statements, they were neither cited nor examined as prosecution
witnesses. The Trial Court viewed this as suppression of material
evidence and observed that the prosecution had failed to present the
complete and true facts before the Court. With respect to the
allegations of cruelty and harassment, the Trial Court held that the
prosecution was required to establish such allegations through cogent
and convincing evidence. However, no reliable evidence was led to
prove that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty, harassment,
or dowry-related demands. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses did
not attribute any specific overt acts to the other accused persons. In
the absence of specific allegations or evidence against them, their
implication in the case appeared to be unsupported by the evidence
on record.
12. On perusal of the facts, it appears that the ingredients of
Sections 306, 498A of the IPC is not added at all borne out. Of course,
the death caused within seven, years of the marriage span and,
therefore, it could have drawn inference under Section 113 of the
Evidence Act, for which some clinching evidence is required either it is
in act or omission on the part of the accused which was required to be
drawn the deceased which ultimately by committing a crime i.e.
commission of suicide. Whether there was any abetment or not before
the incident; there was any cruelty meted out to the deceased, but
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
there was no evidence brought before the Court below. Therefore, the
Court below after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rajbabu Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR
2008 SC 3212 passed the impugned judgment and order. In the said
decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in similar set of facts,
annunciated the guidelines and for drawing inference under Section
113 (A) and (B) of the Evidence Act, the evidence is required to be
brought by the prosecution. In the facts of the case, there was no
evidence worth the name led by the prosecution which connects with
the crime in question. All the respondents have been falsely
implicated in the case and tried to register the offence under Section
302 of the IPC, however, the trial Court, after perusing the record of
the case, has not considered and therefore the trial Court has not
framed the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. 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 there
is no any illegality and infirmity found in the judgment and order.
13. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption
of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
14. 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.
15. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and
another, reported in [2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more
particularly in paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out
by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
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, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by
the trial Court.
16. 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
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
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.”
17. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
18. 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
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2181/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
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.
19. 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)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:26 IST 2026
