Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rakeshbhai @ Lalo Chhanabhai Nakum on 3 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1428 of 2017
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1495 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAKESHBHAI @ LALO CHHANABHAI NAKUM
================================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR P B KHAMBHOLJA(5730) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAKDate : 03/07/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal No.1428 of 2017 has been preferred by the
appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for
short) against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2017 passed by
the learned 3rd (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula (hereinafter
be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.16 of 2011
(Old Sessions Case No.49 of 2009), whereby the trial Court has
acquitted the original accused (respondent herein) from the offences
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the
IPC“).
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
1.2 Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.1495 of 2017 has been preferred
by the appellant – original complainant against the very same
judgment and order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the learned 3 rd (Ad-
hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula (hereinafter be referred to as
“the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.16 of 2011 (Old Sessions Case
No.49 of 2009), whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original
accused (respondent herein) from the offences punishable under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC“).
1.3 Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment
and order dated 29.08.2017, they are heard analogously and are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the
respondent wanted to keep love affairs with the victim and for that he
was making mobile phone calls and sending SMS and for that there
was some dispute between father of victim wherein the accused
inflicted knife blows to father of victim and for that FIR was also
registered. It is also the case of prosecution that since the accused
was harassing the daughter of the complainant, she left her study and
thereafter on 27.08.2008 while the victim girl was alone at her home,
at that time, accused from outside of the house asked to get marry
with him and also stated her that she will ready to bear results as of
her aunt. It is the case of prosecution that at last the victim
committed suicide by hanging herself with the rope on 28.08.2008
between 9:00 and 9:30. Thus, the respondent committed the offence
of abetment to commit suicide.
2.2 The complaint was lodged, investigation was carried out,
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
Panchnama was drawn and statements of the witnesses were
recorded. As sufficient evidence to link the accused with the crime
were found, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondent-
accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty to
the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
P.W. No. Name of Witnesses Exhibit
1 Sadhnaben Mukeshbhai Gadhiya, Complainant 17
2 Harshadray Nanalal Gadhiya 21
3 Kirtiben Harshadray Gadhiya 50
4 Sangitaben Nareshbhai Gadhiya 57
5 Rameshbhai Jinabhai Joshi 61
6 Dr.Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Jethva 102
7 Safirbhai Satarbhai Selot 108
8 Somabhai Maganbhai Gamit 109
9 Ramdevsinh Bharatsinh Gohil 110
10 Krishnalal Girjashankar Pandya 116
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the
following documentary evidence:-
Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit 1 Complaint 18 2 Inquest Panchnama 58 3 Panchnama of place of offence 62 4 O.P. case papers and yaadi to perform P.M. 103,104 5 P.M. Form 105 6 P.M. Note 106 Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026 undefined 7 Medical Yaadi 107 8 Photograph, FIR 111,112 9 Copy of register extract 113 10 Copy of application as well as letter 114,115 11 Depute Order 117 12 Death certificate of Sikanderbhai Rustam Saiyed 120
(Investigation Officer of offence under Section 324 of
IPC)
5. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been
recorded wherein he denied of having committed any offence and has
stated that he is innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
8. Heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat, learned counsel Mr.Vivek Bhamre for
the appellant – original complainant and Mr.P.B. Khambholja, learned
counsel for the respondent – accused at length.
9. Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which are
narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the
prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence,
has assailed the impugned judgment and order and submitted that
the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence
connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper
perspective and even the prosecution has been able to prove the
charges levelled against the accused. While referring to the evidence
of the witnesses and the material collected against the accused,
Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
prosecution has established the case against the accused by
examining the witnesses, who have supported the case of the
prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and disbelieved
the evidence of these witnesses. She has submitted that the
witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, however,
the trial Court has not appreciated the same and passed the judgment
and order of acquittal which is illegal and unjust. She has submitted
that it is settled legal position that the evidence of a single witness is
sufficient for conviction if the same is reliable and trustworthy and in
the present case, though the evidence of all the witnesses are reliable
and trustworthy, without any cogent reason, the trial Court has
disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the witnesses.
9.1 According to Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have
imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present
appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal.
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
9.2 Learned counsel Mr.Bhamre, appearing for the original
complainant (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1495 of 2017) has
supported the submissions canvassed by the learned APP. He has
referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
rendered in case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh, reported in [2017] 7 SCC 780 and submitted that the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal be quashed and set aside
and the present appeal be allowed.
10. Per contra, Mr.Khambholja, learned counsel for the respondent
– accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has
submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and
fact in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him.
He has submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged against
the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as the complainant
has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. He has
also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to connect the
accused with the alleged crime in question. He has prayed to confirm
the impugned judgment and dismiss the present appeal.
11. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as
under:-
(1) whether the trial Court is justified in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
led by the prosecution in recording the reasons.
(3) whether there is any illegality, irregularity or any perversity inPage 6 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. Before parting
with this judgment, it is necessary to examine the case presented by
the prosecution before the trial Court. It is the case of the prosecution
that PW-1, the complainant, Sadhnaben, stated before the trial Court
that her daughter, Kavita aged 16 years, had committed suicide by
hanging herself at her residence on account of the mental torture and
harassment allegedly caused by the present respondent. According to
the prosecution, the respondent wanted to marry Kavita; however, as
she was neither willing nor interested in marrying him, she refused his
proposal. Thereafter, the respondent allegedly continued to harass
her, which, according to the prosecution, led to her committing
suicide. PW-1 further stated that approximately three months prior to
the alleged incident, she and her sister-in-law (Jethani) went to the
respondent’s house to complain about his behaviour and during the
course of the visit, a heated altercation ensued, during which the
respondent allegedly inflicted injuries upon them. Consequently, an
FIR was lodged against the respondent by her brother-in-law (Jeth) at
Rajula Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323
and 504 of the IPC. It is further the case of the prosecution that, on
the previous day in the evening, the respondent again visited the
complainant’s house. At that time, the deceased was alone at home.
The respondent allegedly threatened and coerced the deceased,
demanding that she agree to marry him, failing which she should
commit suicide and end her life. The deceased, Kavita, stated this fact
to her mother at approximately 10:00 p.m. at night, however, no
immediate action was taken and in the following morning at around
10:00 a.m., while she was alone in the house with her brother, she
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
committed suicide by hanging herself. The prosecution alleges that
the respondent’s act of threatening the deceased on the previous
night led to the deceased taking the extreme step of dying by suicide.
Consequently, the respondent has been charged with the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. It appears from the record
that the prosecution examined ten witnesses, including the
investigating officer and the medical officer. However, except for the
close relatives of the deceased, none of the prosecution witnesses
supported the prosecution case, and they did not corroborate the
alleged incident.
13. From the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, it is evident that there
are material contradictions regarding the manner in which the body of
the deceased was brought down from the hanging position. PW-1
specifically denied that she had, by herself, brought the body down
and placed it on the cot. On the other hand, PW-2, Harshadray, who is
the brother-in-law (Jeth) of PW-1, stated in his deposition that he was
present at the spot and that, with his assistance, the dead body of the
deceased, Kavita, was brought down from the hanging position and
placed on the cot. Thus, the versions of PW-1 and PW-2 on this
material aspect are contradictory. Of course, this is a minor
discrepancy in the evidence; however, even this minor discrepancy
creates a gap in the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the
prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of
circumstances. No one witnessed whether the respondent had visited
the house of the deceased, Kavita, on the previous night. The facts
stated by the Investigating Officer in his deposition clearly establish
that the investigation was not conducted properly. The rope allegedly
used by the deceased for the commission of suicide was neither
recovered, nor sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), nor
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
produced before the trial Court and thus, the depositions of the
witnesses further reveal certain lapses in the investigation, which
have also been noted by the trial Court. Certain suggestions were put
to PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 that one Pranavbhai, who was their relative,
was the person whom the deceased Kavita wanted to marry. It was
further suggested that there was a handwritten chit written by her,
which was shown to PW-1; however, PW-1 denied that the said chit
was written by the deceased. In such circumstances, the said
handwritten chit ought to have been sent to a handwriting expert for
comparison with the subsequent handwriting samples, but the same
was not done during the course of the investigation. It is true that the
death of the deceased was a suicidal death, as the deceased herself
committed suicide. Now, the only question that arises for
consideration is whether any act or omission on the part of the
respondent, soon before the commission of the crime, can be
considered as abetment for the commission of the offence. Even if we
consider the facts as they are, the threat was issued by the
respondent on the day before the alleged incident. Thereafter, the
deceased slept peacefully with her family members through the entire
night, and at around 10:00 a.m. the following day, in the presence of
her brother, she decided to end her life and committed suicide by
hanging herself. Therefore, this cannot be said to be an immediate
cause or an act committed soon before the commission of the
offence, because there was a gap of more than 15-16 hours between
the alleged threat, as stated by the complainant, and the act
committed by the deceased Kavita. During this intervening period,
everyone was present in the house, and the deceased also slept
peacefully with her family members. On the following morning, she
committed suicide, which, in the given circumstances, does not
attract the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, which fact was also
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
rightly observed by the trial Court while discussing the same. At this
juncture, it is also required to take into consideration Exh.-114, which
is the complaint made by the nearby residents of the deceased,
particularly one Shamjibhai Bhikhabhai Nakum, who was running a
shop where the present respondent was working. It was stated therein
that, on the day of the alleged incident, the respondent was present
at the shop itself and had not visited the house of the deceased
Kavita, as alleged. Therefore, they had made a representation to the
Home Minister and other legal authorities on 01.09.2008 and had also
demanded an independent inquiry into the matter. The said document
was brought on record and was exhibited. All these circumstances
establish that the Investigating Officer had neither paid due attention
to these aspects nor conducted a proper investigation, and no
evidence was brought on record by the Investigating Officer to
substantiate the allegations. However, there are certain vital
omissions and contradictions proved from the deposition of the
Investigating Officer, and therefore, the trial Court, after considering
all these relevant aspects, has rightly passed the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal. So far as the offence under Section 306 of the
IPC is concerned, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions,
which are reproduced hereunder :
Section 306 : Abetment of suicide.–
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
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
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
(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.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice
to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully
represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to
apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.– Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
14. From a bare perusal of the above provisions of Section 306 read
with Section 107 of the IPC, wherein abetment of a thing is defined, it
is required to be considered whether the act of the present
respondent satisfies the necessary ingredients of the said provisions
and therefore, after considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as well as different Courts of India, which are referred in
paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court
has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in
favour of the respondent. Learned counsel Mr.Bhamre, appearing for
the complainant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court rendered in case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh (Supra) and tried to canvass that since the deceased was
allegedly threatened by the respondent on the previous day and
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
committed suicide on the following day, the ingredients of abetment
are prima facie made out, however, the issue is squarely covered by
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Velladurai Vs.
State Represented By The Inspector of Police, reported in
[2022] 17 SCC 523, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
and observed as under :
“If any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a
result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the
person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence
under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide.
Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306
IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission
of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or
by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As
observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu Pal Vs.
State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 mere harassment
without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to
the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to
an offence under Section 306 IPC.”
15. The trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal, has rightly relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
reported in AIR 2010 SC 327. The trial Court has correctly observed
that the prosecution failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, any
proximate nexus between the alleged threat and the unfortunate act
of suicide committed by the deceased, Kavita. In view of the above, I
am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error of
facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order and there
is no any illegality or any infirmity found in the judgment and order.
16. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption
of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
17. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while
exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which they are charged.
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
18. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court 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.
19. 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.
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very
strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive
powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
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.”
20. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1428/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2026
undefined
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.
21. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against him. 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.
22. In view of the above, both the appeals being devoid of merits,
deserve to be dismissed. Resultantly, both the appeals are hereby
dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record
and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:33:11 IST 2026
