Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajendragar Hiragar Goswami on 1 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1595 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
à°
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJENDRAGAR HIRAGAR GOSWAMI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PUNIT B JUNEJA(3972) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-State has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2009 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2,
Anjar-Kuch (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court”) in
Sessions Case No. 20 of 2007 below Exh.71, whereby Trial
Court has acquitted the original accused -respondent from the
charges punishable under Sections 306, 504 and 506(2) of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “IPC“).
Page 1 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the original
complainant, Dipak Babulal Raval, was residing at Rameshwar
Nagar, Anjar, and was engaged in religious work. It is the
case of the prosecution that the complainant’s uncle,
Chandulal, had borrowed money from the respondent-
accused. The respondent-accused was persistently demanding
repayment of the loan, abusing Chandulal in filthy language,
threatening to kill him, and thereby subjecting him to physical
and mental harassment. Unable to bear such harassment,
Chandulal allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself
between 10.10.2006 and 11.10.2006. Thus, it is alleged that
the respondent-accused committed the aforesaid offence.
2.1 Upon receiving information, the police registered the
complaint, carried out the investigation, prepared the
necessary panchnamas, recorded the statements of witnesses,
and, on finding sufficient evidence against the respondent-
accused, filed a charge-sheet before the competent Court. The
respondent-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and
claimed to be tried.
2.2 To prove its case, the prosecution examined 08 witnesses
and produced 15 documentary evidences before the Trial
Court. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court
passed the judgment and order acquitting the present
respondent accused.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 29.05.2009 passed by the learned
Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2007 below Exh.71,
Page 2 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
the appellant prefers the present appeal.
3. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant-
State and Mr.Punit Juneja, learned counsel for the respondent
accused.
4. The learned APP submitted that the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law,
evidence on record, and the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence. She has submitted that the learned Trial Court
failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence on record. She has submitted that the learned Trial
court erred in holding that the prosecution failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt despite cogent oral and
documentary evidence.
4.1 The learned APP submitted the learned Trial Court failed
to properly appreciate the evidence of the complainant,
supporting witnesses, the medical evidence, and the
Investigating Officer, resulting in an erroneous order of
acquittal. She has submitted that the learned Trial Court
failed to properly consider the complaint (Exh.38), the inquest
panchnama (Exh.26), the scene of offence panchnama
(Exh.27), and the suicide notes (Exhs.28 and 33), which
constitute material evidence on record.
4.2 The learned APP submitted that the learned Trial Court
erred in not treating the suicide note as relevant evidence
under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and failed to
draw the proper inference from the same. She has submitted
that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the
Page 3 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
respondent-accused continuously harassed the deceased by
demanding repayment of money and threatening him, which
abetted the commission of suicide. She has submitted that the
prosecution witnesses remained consistent despite lengthy
cross-examination, and their evidence is duly corroborated by
documentary evidence and therefore there was no valid
reason to disbelieve their testimony.
4.3 The learned APP submitted that the learned Trial Court
wrongly concluded that there was no evidence explaining the
cause of the incident, ignoring the consistent evidence
regarding the harassment meted out to the deceased. She has
submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the
prosecution evidence in its proper perspective and committed
a grave error in acquitting the respondent despite the
prosecution having proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4.4 Accordingly, the learned APP urged that the present
appeal deserves to be dismissed and impugned judgment and
order of acquittal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. On the other hand learned advocate for the respondent
accused has supported the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned advocate
appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Trial Court is just, legal, and proper and does not call
for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. It was submitted
that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral as
well as documentary evidence available on record and has
recorded findings based on proper appreciation of facts and
Page 4 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
settled principles of law.
5.1 Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that
the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on cogent
reasons and are neither arbitrary nor contrary to law.
5.2 Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that in
an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court are perverse, illegal, or wholly
unsupported by evidence, interference by the Appellate Court
is unwarranted. In the present case, no such infirmity,
illegality, or perversity is demonstrated in the impugned
judgment and order. Therefore, it was urged that the appeal
deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
6. I have perused the relevant documents and material placed
on record. I have also gone through the judgment and order
passed by the trial Court.
7. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court, and upon close
examination of the depositions of the witnesses recorded by
the learned Trial Court, the issues that arise for determination
by this Court are as below:
(i) Whether the learned Trial Court, while appreciating
the evidence led by the prosecution, committed any
error?
Page 5 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
(ii) Whether the learned Trial Court committed any error
of fact or law while passing the impugned judgment and
order;
(iii) Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any
illegality or perversity; and
(ix) Whether, upon proper appreciation of the oral as
well as documentary evidence on record, the learned
Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order
of acquittal in favour of the present respondent.
8. Let us first examine the facts of the case. On 10.10.2006, or
during the intervening night of 10.10.2006 and 11.10.2006,
the deceased, Chandulal Rawal, was found hanging in his
house. An intimation regarding the incident was given by one
Manishbhai Rawal on 11.10.2006, pursuant to which an
Accidental Death (A.D.) entry was registered. On the basis of
the said A.D. entry, the concerned jurisdictional police
commenced an inquiry. During the course of the inquiry, the
statements of the witnesses were recorded; however, nothing
incriminating was found, and the case continued to be treated
as one of accidental death.
9. Thereafter, after a gap of about eight days, the present FIR
came to be lodged by another nephew of the deceased,
namely Deepakbhai Babulal Rawal. During the course of the
investigation, an inquest panchnama was drawn, at which
time a handwritten chit was allegedly found in the shirt
pocket of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the said
Page 6 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
chit disclosed that the present respondent had been
demanding repayment of money allegedly lent to the deceased
and had extended threats in that regard. It is the case of the
prosecution that, owing to such threats and the fear created
thereby, the deceased was driven to commit suicide. This is
the prosecution’s version of the incident.
10. Now, upon examining the facts of the case, two significant
issues arise for consideration. Firstly, when the information
regarding the death of the deceased was furnished by
Manishbhai Rawal on 11.10.2006, why was the said
information not treated as a First Information Report, or at
least as information disclosing the commission of a cognizable
offence?
11. Secondly, during the inquest proceedings, as recorded in
the inquest panchnama, a handwritten chit was recovered
from the shirt pocket of the deceased. The contents of the said
chit allegedly disclosed facts constituting the commission of a
cognizable offence. Even the Investigating Officer, in his
cross-examination, admitted that the contents of the chit
disclosed a cognizable offence and that, on the basis thereof,
an FIR could have been registered. Despite this, no FIR was
registered at that stage.
12. Ultimately, on 18.10.2006, another nephew of the
deceased, namely Deepak Babubhai Rawal, lodged the
present FIR before the jurisdictional police for the offences
punishable under Sections 306, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian
Penal Code.
Page 7 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
13. To explain the delay in lodging the FIR, the complainant,
PW-1 Deepak Babubhai Rawal, stated that, as the post-death
rituals of the deceased were yet to be performed, the family
members were unable to leave their house and, therefore,
could not lodge the FIR for a period of thirteen days.
However, this explanation is not borne out from the record, as
the FIR itself came to be lodged on 18.10.2006, i.e., within
eight days of the incident, much before the expiry of the
alleged thirteen-day period. Thus, the explanation offered by
PW-1 is self-contradictory and does not inspire confidence.
The learned Trial Court, therefore, rightly found the
explanation to be unsatisfactory and declined to accept it.
14. So far as the question relating to the registration of the
FIR is concerned, it is difficult to comprehend why the police
did not treat the first information furnished by Manishbhai
Rawal as a First Information Report. Similarly, even after the
handwritten chit was allegedly recovered during the course of
the inquest proceedings, the Investigating Officer did not
register an FIR on the basis of its contents, despite admitting
in his cross-examination that the chit disclosed the
commission of a cognizable offence. Being fully aware of the
legal position, the Investigating Officer could have himself set
the criminal law into motion by registering the FIR and
treating himself as the informant. However, no such course of
action was adopted.
15. It was only on the third occasion, when Deepakbhai
approached the jurisdictional police after about eight days,
that the present FIR came to be registered. Significantly, the
Page 8 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
fact regarding the alleged recovery of the handwritten chit
surfaced for the first time only at that stage. During the
earlier inquiry conducted pursuant to the Accidental Death
entry, there was not even a whisper that any such chit had
been recovered from the person or the body of the deceased,
Chandulal Rawal.
16. Another surprising aspect of the prosecution case is that,
during the inquiry conducted pursuant to the registration of
the Accidental Death (A.D.) entry, the statements of the
daughter of the deceased, the wife of the deceased, and the
brother-in-law of the deceased were recorded by the
Investigating Officer. However, despite their statements
having been recorded at the earliest point of time, none of
these material witnesses was examined by the prosecution
during the trial arising out of the present FIR registered for
the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code. The non-examination of these material witnesses, who
were the closest family members of the deceased and were
expected to throw light on the circumstances leading to the
alleged suicide, assumes considerable significance and gives
rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution.
17. Another circumstance that catches the attention of the
Court is that the alleged handwritten chit was never sent to
the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) or to a handwriting
expert for examination. Although the prosecution had other
documentary material and admitted writings of the deceased
available during the course of the investigation, no attempt
was made to compare the handwriting appearing on the chit
Page 9 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
with the specimen or admitted handwriting of the deceased.
Consequently, no evidence was brought on record to establish
that the chit was, in fact, written by the deceased.
18. The Investigating Officer, in his deposition before the
Court, candidly admitted that he had not sent the said chit or
the admitted handwriting of the deceased for expert opinion,
despite the document having allegedly been recovered during
the course of the investigation. He further admitted that he
had not recorded the statements of any independent
witnesses residing in the vicinity of the deceased’s residence.
The Investigating Officer also admitted that, till 18.10.2006,
he had not received the alleged handwritten chit. These
admissions assume considerable significance and cast a
serious doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case.
19. If, for the first time, the alleged handwritten chit came to
light only on 18.10.2006, then the investigation conducted
pursuant to the Accidental Death (A.D.) entry itself raises
serious questions regarding the manner in which the
investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer. If
the contents of the chit, as alleged by the prosecution,
disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence at the very
first instance, there was no justification for the police in
neither registering an FIR nor setting the criminal law into
motion at the relevant point of time.
20. These circumstances go to the very root of the prosecution
case and cast a serious doubt on the fairness and reliability of
the investigation. Such lapses are not merely procedural
irregularities but are fatal to the prosecution case.
Page 10 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
21. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the learned
Trial Court, while assigning detailed reasons, extensively
considered these aspects in paragraph 13 of the impugned
judgment. Upon an appreciation of the entire evidence and
the surrounding circumstances, the learned Trial court
disbelieved the prosecution case. The Court has specifically
recorded its findings in paragraph 34 of the judgment. While
dealing with the submissions advanced by both sides, the
learned Trial Court observed as under:
“34. The Ld. A.P.P. Shri Madiyar, for the Prosecution, has placed
before the Court a judgment of the Division Bench comprising
Hon’ble Justice Shri T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar, Hon’ble Justice Shri
P. B. Gajendragadkar, and Hon’ble Justice Shri A. K. Sarkar,
reported in A.I.R. 1959 Supreme Court 443 (V 46 C 56) (Mysore),
in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and
others. Upon perusal of the said judgment, and as discussed by me
in the aforementioned paragraphs, the evidence of the
Investigating Officer reveals certain tendencies: despite the
availability of evidence to verify the genuineness of the suicide
note, a tendency of not obtaining the same; despite the availability
of evidence of the wife and daughter, a tendency of not producing
the same; and despite the availability of independent witnesses, a
tendency of not producing such independent witnesses.
Furthermore, even though it was possible to obtain an expert
opinion regarding what facts were written in the suicide note,
wherein erasures were made, the reason for not obtaining the
same; and evidence indicating that the suicide note was recovered
from different places. Moreover, despite it being a cognizable
offense, and even though the alleged suicide note was available on
the 11th–i.e., immediately available after the incident–there was a
tendency of not registering the offense immediately. There was a
tendency of not conducting the Inquest Panchnama in the presence
of an Executive Magistrate; and also a tendency of handing over
the Yadi at Exhibit-59 to the Executive Magistrate after the
panchnama had been completed. Looking at all these tendencies,
even though this Court agrees with the principle established in the
judgment relied upon by the prosecution, when looking at the
circumstances of the case, the backdrop in which the offense was
registered against the accused of this case, and the facts and
circumstances, regarding the offence, that have brought on record
before this Court, and considering that this case does not involve a
husband and wife relationship, and does not fall under the
definition of Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act; andPage 11 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
particularly keeping in view the principle established in
paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 of the judgment of the Rajasthan High
Court (Jaipur Bench) delivered by Hon’ble Justice Shri R.S. Verma,
reported in 1995 Cri. Law Journal page 3066 in the case of Manish
Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, wherein despite the
utterance of words like (“Randi tu marti kyun nahi hai, mere saath
chal nahi toh tujhe jaan se maar dunga”) (You whore, why don’t
you die? Come with me or else I will kill you) in the facts of that
case, as well as the words noted in paragraph 21, (“Tu Mere
rishtedar hai, tune hamari badnami karvadi, isse toh accha hota ki
tu mar jata”) (They are my relatives, you have defamed us, it would
have been better if you died); and further agreeing with the
principle established in paragraph 22 of the judgment with
reference to Rambabu Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 Cri.L.
Reporter Page 646–this Court, even while keeping the said
judgment in view, does not consider it appropriate to hold the
accused of this case guilty.”
22. After considering all the aforesaid circumstances, the
learned Trial Court rightly disbelieved the prosecution case
and consequently passed the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal. In my considered opinion, the learned Trial Court,
upon a proper appreciation of the oral as well as the
documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, correctly
assessed the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence on
record. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge,
particularly in paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment, are
based on a careful evaluation of the material available on
record. The prosecution failed to furnish any satisfactory
explanation.
23. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court was fully
justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal. This Court does not find any infirmity, illegality,
perversity, or misappreciation of evidence in the impugned
judgment warranting interference in the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order
Page 12 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
of acquittal deserve to be confirmed.
24. Even upon a plain reading of the provisions of Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code, it is evident that a person can be
held liable for the offence of abetment of suicide only when
there is cogent evidence to establish that the accused had
intentionally instigated, aided, or actively participated in the
commission of the suicide. There must be a direct and
proximate nexus between the acts or conduct of the accused
and the commission of the suicide, and the alleged acts must
be of such a nature as to drive the deceased to take the
extreme step.
25. In the present case, there is not an iota of evidence to
establish that the present respondent had extended any
immediate threat or indulged in any conduct amounting to
instigation or abetment immediately preceding the death of
the deceased. No witness has come forward to prove the chain
of circumstances connecting the respondent with the
commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution has thus
failed to establish the necessary ingredients of Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code or to prove the requisite proximity
between the alleged acts of the respondent and the suicide
committed by the deceased.
26. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent, reliable, and
convincing evidence establishing the essential ingredients of
the offence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt, and the learned Trial Court was
fully justified in recording an order of acquittal. Even
assuming, for the sake of argument, that the respondent had
Page 13 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
merely demanded repayment of the money allegedly due from
the deceased, can such an act, by itself, constitute an offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code? The
answer must be in the negative. Mere demand for repayment
of money, without anything more, cannot amount to
instigation or abetment of suicide.
27. The question that further arises is whether the deceased
was subjected to any immediate or proximate act of
intimidation, harassment, or other compelling circumstance at
the hands of the respondent which directly drove him to
commit suicide. On a careful perusal of the evidence recorded
by the learned Trial Court, no such evidence has been brought
on record.
28. None of the essential ingredients required to constitute an
offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code have been established by the prosecution. Consequently,
the prosecution has failed to prove that there existed any
direct or proximate nexus between the alleged conduct of the
respondent and the commission of suicide by the deceased.
Therefore, no infirmity, illegality, or perversity is found in the
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial
Court, warranting interference by this Court.
13. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the provisions of
Section 306 and 107 of the IPC, which reads as under:
“Section 306- Abetment of suicide.–
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of eitherPage 14 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Section 107-Abetment of a thing.–
A person abets the doing of a thing, who–
(First)– Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly)– Engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or(Thirdly)– Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.– A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by
wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
14. So far as section 306 IPC is concerned, it is also
appropriate to refer the decision of this Court in cases of
State Of Gujarat Versus Ashvinbhai Naginbhai Tandel
reported in 2025 (0) GUJHC 20677, State Of Gujarat Versus
Bhaveshbhai Manilalbhai Patel reported in 2025 (2) GLR 923,
State Of Gujarat Versus Haji Haroon Meman reported in 2026
(0) GUJHC 7002 as well as the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the cases of Ramesh Kumar Versus State Of
Chhattisgarh reported in 2001 (9) SCC 618 and Ram Pyarey
Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 (6) SCC 820.
15. There is neither direct nor indirect evidence produced by
the prosecution to establish that any act or conduct on the
part of the present respondent had driven the deceased to
such an extent that she was left with no alternative but to take
Page 15 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
the extreme step of committing suicide. Therefore, under the
circumstances, the trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal. No infirmity,
illegality, or perversity is found in the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal. Hence, the present appeal is devoid of
merits and deserves to be dismissed.
16. In these circumstances, the trial Court was justified in
concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the
ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and,
therefore, rightly recorded an order of acquittal.
17. On perusal of the record of the appeal, it transpires that
the respondent-accused has established his innocence before
the learned Trial Court and that, after due appreciation of the
oral as well as documentary evidence and other material
placed on record, the learned Trial Court has rightly passed
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court are just, proper and in
accordance with the settled principles of law and, therefore,
no interference is warranted by this Court.
18. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider
the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the
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
Page 16 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
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.
19. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal
against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not
ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest
illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at
by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are
possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which
would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below.
However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the
evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by
the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a
manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on
record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a
just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find
out whether the accused are connected with the commission
of the crime with which he is charged.
20. 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
Page 17 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
paragraph Nos. 42 and 43, which was subsequently re-
affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State
of Bihar and another, reported in [2022] 3 SCC 471,
wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general
principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph
No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex
Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar
Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 =
(2024) 8 SCC 149, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with
the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to
40. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings
recorded by the trial Court.
21. 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 strongPage 18 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court
in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of
an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the
power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High
Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and
weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the
Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of
guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal
against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High
Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses
and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their
testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the
jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the
brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal,
resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing
the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial
Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
22. 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.
23. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it
Page 19 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1595/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
undefined
clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any
error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record
and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled
against them. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it
clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
24. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of
merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is
dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond
stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Page 20 of 20
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:46:55 IST 2026
