Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajubhai Samsubhai Baria (Bhil) on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1943 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJUBHAI SAMSUBHAI BARIA (BHIL) & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 11/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment
and order of acquittal dated 26.07.2010, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Anand, in Sessions Case No.41 of 2010 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this
appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short, “the Code”).
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before
the trial Court is that the respondent-original accused No.1 was
Page 1 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
married to the deceased. During the subsistence of the marriage, the
accused allegedly subjected the deceased to continuous physical and
mental cruelty, including harassment on suspicion of her character
and demands for dowry. It is alleged that due to persistent torture
and harassment, which crossed tolerable limits, the deceased
committed suicide by hanging herself with a sari 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.41 of 2010. 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 8 witnesses and also produced 16 documentary
evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the
impugned judgment.
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis
of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial
Page 2 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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
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. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, this appeal is already
Page 3 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
abated qua respondent no.1. None appears on behalf of the
respondent no.2, though served.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and
dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with
the Court :
8.1. The prosecution has relied on the complaint, which is
filed vide Exhibit-15 as per the said complaint the alleged
incident has taken place on 23.01.2010. It is the case of the
prosecution that the, deceased Sitaben before four months of
the alleged incident was upset and had come to her parental
house, and had alleged that the accused no.1 was doubting
the character of the deceased with Natubhai Saburbhai andthereafter, father of the accused and the mother of the
accused had come to take the deceased from her parental
house. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the fact
that there was a dispute before four months from the date of
incident.
8.2. The marriage span of the deceased with the accused
no.1 was two years. The complaint has been filed by the
brother of the deceased. The prosecution has examined
Page 4 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
Dr.Hasmukh P. Parekh as PW-1, who was working as
Medical Officer at Ode Community Health Center and he had
conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and as per the
said report, which is produced vide exhibit-12, the cause of
death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to hanging
and the medical certificate is produced vide exhibit-13.
8.3. The complainant Rakesh Bhai has been examined as
PW-2 vide exhibit-14 and in his cross-examination, he has
admitted the fact that the deceased was of sensitive nature
and before the incident, the fact of extramarital affair had
come to his knowledge. The mother of the deceased has been
examined vide the Exhibit-16. The relative of the deceased,
Shamsubhai has been examined vide exhibit-17 as PW-4.
8.4. If the entire evidence is taken into consideration, the
witnesses of the prosecution have not proved other than the
fact that, before four months from the date of incident, there
was harassment by the accused on the deceased. The fact
remains that the claim of extramarital affair, which is
alleged from the case of the prosecution is with one
Natubhai, but the fact remains that Natubhai and his wife
happen to be relative of the accused and have been staying
together. If the said fact was true, the accused no.1 would
not be staying with said Natubhai.
Page 5 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
8.5. Therefore, the entire case which has been stated by the
complainant is that the dispute was that the accused was
harassing the deceased, for having illicit relation with
Natubhai, but the same has not been proved by the
prosecution. The other fact which has been taken into
consideration by the sessions Court is that the deceased had
come to Devarampura village just before five days from the
date of alleged incident, but the prosecution has failed to
prove that what was the quarrel between the deceased and
the accused which had taken place over there. The
prosecution has also not been able to prove that there was
any role of the accused in instigating the deceased for
committing suicide.
8.6. The prosecution has also not been able to prove the
instigating act which was immediate in close proximity to
prove the offence against the accused. With respect to the
illicit relation of the deceased with Natubhai, the prosecution
has also not examined Natubhai and/ or his wife to prove
the said fact.
8.7. Moreover, the place where the deceased was working
was a poultry farm, and the prosecution has not examined
any of the labourers or the owner or the contractor of the
Page 6 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
said poultry farm to prove the fact of harassment by the
accused on the deceased.
8.8. The prosecution has also not proved the offence of
demand of dowry by the accused. If the evidence of the
police officers who have been examined vide exhibit-31, Police
Constable Mahendrabhai Vala, the P.S.O.-Basirkhan
Aiyubkhan Pathan, who has been examined vide exhibit-32,
and the P.S.I. Ajaysinh Hardaysinh Rajput, who has been
examined vide exhibit-35, the prosecution has not been able
to prove from the said evidence, the offence against the
accused.
8.9. Moreover, according to the complainant, about four
months prior to the incident, Sitaben had a quarrel with her
husband (the accused Rajubhai) and Surataben, who is the
sister-in-law of the deceased. The accused Rajubhai used to
harbour a false suspicion that his wife, Sitaben, had an illicit
relationship with Natubhai. When Sitaben had come to her
parental home about four months before the incident, she had
informed her mother, elder uncle, and father about the same.
She had stated that she did not wish to return to her
matrimonial home; however, in order to prevent the marital
life from being disrupted, when the parents of accused
Rajubhai came to take Sitaben back, she was sent with them
Page 7 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
to her matrimonial home.
8.10. From the date of marriage until the conversation that
took place four months prior to the incident, there is nothing
on record to indicate that the deceased had ever complained
either to the complainant or to her parental family about any
form of harassment by the accused. If in fact the deceased
had been subjected to such unbearable cruelty that she was
unwilling to return, then unless and until some assurance or
undertaking had been given from the matrimonial side that
she would be treated properly and not subjected to any
harassment, neither the complainant nor his family members
would have chosen to send Sitaben back to her matrimonial
home. On the one hand, the complainant states that the
police had called him to come to the hospital; on the other
hand, he states that he himself had gone to the police
station, made inquiries there, and thereafter gone to the
hospital. These versions of the sequence of events do not
appear to be consistent and seem contradictory. He has
stated that he had seen the dead body of the deceased;
however, he has not clarified who informed him, when, and
under what circumstances, that she had hanged herself and
committed suicide. He does not state that he personally
noticed any injuries on the body, nor does he mention having
made any inquiry with anyone regarding the incident. He has
Page 8 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
narrated the details of the quarrel and alleged harassment
between his sister and the accused as having occurred four
months prior to the incident. However, despite the deceased
having thereafter resumed cohabitation with the accused,
there is nothing on record to indicate that she was subjected
to any form of harassment during the subsequent four-month
period.
8.11. It has come on record that the accused, the deceased,
and Natubhai were working at a poultry farm; however, none
of the other labourers, the owner, or the contractor of the
said poultry farm have been examined by the police during
the course of investigation. At the place where the deceased
had been working for a considerable period along with other
persons, not a single individual from that workplace has been
brought before the Court to provide any direct or prima facie
evidence regarding the alleged harassment or quarrel. The
prosecution has based the allegation of harassment solely on
the statement said to have been made by the deceased to
her brother about four months prior to the incident. Apart
from that, no independent or corroborative evidence regarding
harassment, which could have been easily brought on record,
has been produced. Therefore, upon overall appreciation of the
evidence, it does not stand proved that the accused subjected
the deceased to cruelty or that they instigated or abetted her
Page 9 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
to take the extreme step of ending her life.
8.12 At Exhibit 16, the evidence of the deceased’s mother,
Saburiben, has been recorded. She has stated that her
daughter committed suicide due to harassment by her
husband; however, she has not clarified for what reasons, in
what manner, or at what point of time such harassment was
allegedly inflicted.
8.13. At Exhibit 17, the evidence of Samusubhai has
been recorded. Upon evaluation of his testimony, it appears
that he has no personal knowledge regarding the allegations
made in the present case. His evidence is purely hearsay in
nature and does not advance the prosecution case.
8.14. The prosecution has examined the police officer as
Prosecution Witness No.5, namely DySP Rajesh Kumar
Pathak, and his evidence has been recorded accordingly. In
cross-examination, he has admitted that one Rameshbhai had
informed him that a woman had hanged herself. He has
further admitted that both the accused and Natubhai had
gone to the spot, seen the dead body, and brought it down.
Thus, Natubhai would be material witness to the incident,
which fact is also acknowledged by the Investigating Officer.
He has also admitted that the statements of the contractor
Page 10 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
Rameshbhai, the accused’s other sister Kali, and Natubhai’s
wife Ramilaben were not recorded during the course of
investigation. Even though these important witnesses were
available, their statements were not recorded, and therefore
they could not be considered or relied upon as supporting
witnesses.
8.15. Vide exhibit 35, the evidence of PSI Rajput has been
recorded. He has admitted that the accused were arrested
before the final opinion regarding the cause of death was
received. He further stated that the saree with which the
deceased had hanged herself was not seized, and that he had
not gone to Sudiya village where in-laws of deceased were
residing.
8.16. If the evidence of the Police Officers are taken into
consideration, the prosecution has failed to prove the direct
proximity i.e. live link between the accused action and the
victim’s death. Moreover, the prosecution has also failed to
prove the act of alleged instigation was near the time of
suicide. The prosecution has also not been able to prove any
evidence of positive, direct act that forced a deceased into a
situation with no other option but to take her life. The
prosecution has not been able to prove a specific incident and
or a recent and direct act of the accused that triggered the
Page 11 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
immediate suicide.
8.17. Moreover, it has also come on record that the
saree with which the deceased had hanged herself was also
not recovered by the prosecution. The prosecution has also
not made any investigation near the matrimonial home of the
deceased.
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
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
Page 12 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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
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,
Page 13 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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 thedeceased 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
Page 14 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally
indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists
on a live and immediate nexus between the acts complained
of and the suicide. A remote or generalized allegation is
insufficient. There must be evidence showing that the accused
engaged in conduct so closely connected in time and effect
with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to have
triggered the fatal act.
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.
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
Page 15 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 16 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 17 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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
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.
Page 18 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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 general agreement with the reasons
given by the Court the decision of which is
under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”
14. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the
reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the
discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
under:
“The powers of the High Court in an appeal from
Page 19 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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 the slowness of appellate Court in
justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who
had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled
law that if the main grounds on which the lower
Court has based its order acquitting the accused are
reasonable and plausible, and the same cannotentirely 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.
Page 20 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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.
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
Page 21 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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 emphasise the reluctance of an
appellate court to interfere with acquittal
than to curtail the power of the court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear
in mind that in case of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
Page 22 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
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
of the case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
Page 23 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1943/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the
case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I
found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the
findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under
the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly
acquitted the respondent/s – accused for the elaborate reasons
stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the
view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the
acquittal.
21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same
deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record
& Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
Sd/
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
Page 24 of 24
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 11 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 11 22:18:22 IST 2026