Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Miteshbhai Laljibhai Patel on 15 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 24/03/2026
Pronounced On : 15/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1047 of 2012
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MITESHBHAI LALJIBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
NR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS POOJA MISTRY FOR MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.04.2012, passed by
rd
the learned 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in
Sessions Case No.26 of 2011, for the offences punishable
under Sections 306 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 and the
accused were residing in the same locality. The accused
repeatedly pressured the complainant’s husband to sell his
Page 1 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
house, despite his clear refusal, and continued to harass him
both mentally and physically. The husband informed the
complainant about this ongoing harassment, who in turn
informed his brother, but no effective resolution occurred. Due
to the persistent pressure and harassment by the accused,
the complainant’s husband ultimately committed suicide by
hanging himself, 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.26 of 2011. 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 6 witnesses and also produced 6 documentary
evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the
impugned judgment as under:
Page 2 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
Oral evidence
Sr.No. Particulars Exhibit
No.
1 Witness No. 1: Gauriben alias Chandikaben 11
Babubhai (Original Informant)
2 Witness No. 2: Khodidas Harjivanbhai 13
3 Witness No. 3: Bhaveshbhai Himatbhai 14
4 Witness No. 4: Tulsiram Manilal 15
Dudharejiya
5 Witness No. 5: Dr.Jigarsinh Nareshkumar 20
Rajput
6 Witness No. 6: Piyushkumar Bhurabhai 22
Desai (Investigating Officer)
Documentary Evidence
Sr. Particulars Exhibit
No. No.
1 First Information Report (FIR) 12
2 Panchnama of the place of occurrence, 17 to
seizure of muddamal (case property), arrest 19 and
of the accused, seizure of iron hook and 23
rope, and inquest panchnama.
Page 3 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
3 Police Investigation Evidence: Two notes 29
(letters) recovered from the deceased
4 Medical Evidence: Post-mortem report 21
5 Forensic Science Laboratory Evidence: 25 to
FSL report, forwarding note, correspondence 28
list, etc.
6 Other Documentary Evidence: 24
Entry regarding forwarding of documents
containing signatures to the Handwriting
Expert, along with authority letter and
specimen seal.
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
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
Page 4 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 5 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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. The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint filed
by the wife of the deceased, which is produced vide exhibit
12 dated 28.09.2010, with respect to the incident that has
taken place on 18.09.2010, therefore the said complaint has
been filed after ten days. If the case of the prosecution is
taken into consideration, it is the case of prosecution that
before four months from the date of incident, the husband of
the complainant had come home and had stated that the
accused met him and informed him that he wanted to
purchase the house of the deceased and told the deceased to
sell his house and at that time, the deceased informed thathe does not want to sell his house and thereafter, as and
when the accused used to meet the deceased, the accused
used to tell him that if he does not sell the house, he will
defame the deceased and the said fact was informed by the
deceased to the complainant and if he does not sell the
house, he will defame him and will file a false complaint
against the deceased and publish it in a newspaper. In the
said complaint, the wife of the complainant has also stated
that because of the constant threat and abuses of the
Page 6 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
accused, the deceased was always in tension. At that time,
the complainant informed the deceased to inform the said
fact to the brother of the deceased Khodidasbhai and brother
of the deceased informed the deceased and the complainant
to come and reside with him for some time and therefore,
they used to reside at the house of the brother of the
deceased and used to come to his residence to sleep.
8.2. It is the case of the prosecution, that the deceased was
always in fear that the accused will not permit the deceased
to live a peaceful life and it is only because of the constant
threats of the accused, the deceased has committed suicide by
hanging himself and before hanging himself, two letters were
found, one from his trouser and another from the house,
wherein it has been stated that the accused shall defame
him if he does not sell the house. The letters which were
found in the pocket of the trousers of the deceased and thehouse have been produced vide exhibit 29.
8.3. The prosecution has examined the complainant, i.e. the
wife of the deceased Gauriben alias Chandrikaben Babubhai
Solanki, as P.W.1 vide exhibit 11. In her examination-in-chief,
she has stated that the deceased did not inform anything to
her and all the said facts were informed to the brother of
the deceased Khodidasbhai. She has also stated that at the
time of incident, the police had come to the residence and
Page 7 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
had taken her statement. She has also deposed in her cross-
examination that when the police had come to take her
statement, she had not made any allegations against the
accused. She is also not aware as to from whom the
deceased, i.e. her husband, used to deal on financial aspect.
She has also stated that the partner of the deceased was one
Rameshbhai Mansukhbhai and what kind of partnership was
there between Rameshbhai Mansukhbhai and the deceased,
was not in the personal knowledge of the said complainant.
She has also stated that in her presence, the accused has
not talked to the deceased.
8.4. The brother of the deceased Khodidasbhai Harjivanbhai
has been examined as P.W.2 at exhibit-13. In his deposition
he has stated that the deceased had informed him that one
Patel is trying to usher his house and the deceased had
given the name of the accused as the person who was
threatening the deceased. He also stated that he had given
details of the threats given by the accused to his brother, to
one person who was a religious person but he does not want
to disclose his name and he also does not know his full
name. In his deposition, he has stated that when he reached
the residence of the deceased, nobody was opening the door
nor the deceased was taking his phone calls. Therefore,
Mahadev Merabhai, who was a neighbour, had stated that
the said witness can enter the house from his residence
Page 8 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
through a staircase. When he reached the place, he saw that
his brother was hanging and he started shouting and opened
the main door. Thereafter, people had gathered and they
brought the deceased down. Thereafter, the police had come.
One of the neighbours, Bhikhabhai had found a letter near
the window. The police had also informed him to check the
trousers of the deceased where they found the second letter.
The prosecution has neither examined said Bhikhabhai who
has alleged to have found the first letter near the window.
Both the letters, D1 and D2 were sent to FSL for further
investigations along with the specimen, showing the
handwriting of the deceased and also of brother Khodidas.
The said witness in the cross-examination has also stated
that the person with whom the deceased had partnership
with Rameshbhai Mansukhbhai happens to be the brother-in-
law of the said witness and the deceased and said
Rameshbhai Mansukhbhai were doing business together of
building and selling the houses. The said witness is not
aware as to who was handling the said business and who
was handling the finances of the said partnership.
8.5. The complainant in the complaint has stated that
because of the threats of the accused, the complainant and
the deceased had come to reside with the brother of the
deceased and said brodher Khodidasbhai had also informed
that because of the threats of the accused, they should come
Page 9 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
and reside with him but in cross-examination, the said
witness states that as his son Jayesh and Radha were
getting married and because of the marriage functions, the
deceased and the complainant had come to reside with him.
He is also not aware as to what the said witness Sardar
Singh i.e. the person to whom the said witness had informed
about the threats given by the accused to the deceased did
after he was informed.
8.6. The prosecution has thereafter examined Bhaveshbhai
Himmatbhai who was a relative of the deceased as P.W.3
vide exhibit-14.
8.7. The prosecution has produced a panchnama of the letters
where the specimen of Khodidasbhai and deceased have been
taken which is produced vide exhibit-16 and the panch
witness Tulsiram Manilal Dudhrejia has been examined as
P.W.4 vide exhibit-15.
8.8. The Medical Officer at Gandhi Hospital Surendranagar,
Dr.Jigarsinh Nareshkumar Rajput has been examined as
P.W.5 vide exhibit-20. The postmortem report is produced
vide exhibit-21 and as per the postmortem report, the cause
of death is asphyxia due to hanging.
8.9. The prosecution has examined Piyushkumar Bhurabhai
Desai, PSI as P.W.6 vide exhibit-22. In his deposition he has
Page 10 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
stated that when the investigating officer had taken the
statement of the complainant Bhavesh and the brother of the
complainant and others, none had made any allegation
against the accused. He has also stated that the person who
had produced the suicide note, has also not been examined.
8.10. The Head Constable who had registered the accidental
death has also not been examined. The prosecution has also
not examined the partner of the deceased Rameshbhai
Mansukhbhai. If the entire evidence is taken into
consideration, the Sessions Court has taken into consideration
that the only allegation that has been made against the
accused is that the accused wanted to purchase the house of
the deceased at a low price and used to threaten the
deceased of defaming him, but the prosecution has not been
able to prove as to what threats was the accused giving to
the deceased. Moreover, the complainant herself has deposed
that the accused has never given any threats to the deceased
in her presence nor has the deceased informed her about any
such threats and the said fact was informed to the brother
of the deceased.
8.11. The prosecution has also failed to justify the reason of
filing a complaint at such a belated stage. It also transpires
that at the time when the said incident had taken place, the
police officers were present and at that time also none of the
Page 11 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
witnesses of the prosecution have made any allegation against
the accused. It also transpires that the police was present for
approximately 3 to 4 hours at the time of incident but none
of the witnesses have made any allegation against the
accused. With respect to the suicide note which is produced
vide exhibit 29, the prosecution has not been able to prove
any offence against the accused. If the panch witness of
exhibit-16 i.e. recovery of letter is taken into consideration,
the panch witness Tulsiram Manilal Dudhrejia in his cross-
examination has stated that he is not aware that who was
the second panch witness. He is also not aware as to when
he had signed the said panchnama.
8.12. Even after the suicide note which was found at the
time of the incident, neither the complainant nor the brother
of the deceased have made any statement against the accused
for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
9.1 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
Page 12 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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.
9.2 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
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.
9.3 The present matter turns on whether the conduct
attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of
Page 13 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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.
9.4 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.
9.5 It is therefore not sufficient to show that the
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
Page 14 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
deceased to commit suicide.
9.6 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 havetriggered the fatal act.
9.7 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.
Page 15 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
9.8 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
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
Page 16 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 17 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 18 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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
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 generalPage 19 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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 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 thePage 20 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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
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.
Page 21 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstances", "distorted
Page 22 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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
Page 23 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
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
Page 24 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1047/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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.
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.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
Page 25 of 25
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:29:12 IST 2026