Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rameshbhai Kangabhai Labada Bariya on 9 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2415 of 2009
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESHBHAI KANGABHAI LABADA BARIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DIVYA P BHATT FOR MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 09/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.09.2009, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, in Sessions
Case No.38 of 2009 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 complainant via., Revabhai
Somabhai Bariya is residing at Motizari, Gadi Faliyu, Tal.
Devgadh Bariya. He has having one daughter viz., Surtiben
aged about 22 years, who initially married at Village :
Page 1 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
Rebari three years prior to registration of the offence,
however, it converted into divorce, and thereafter, she
married with the respondent – accused No.1. After the
marriage, the accused, on one pretext or the other, started
giving mental and physical torture to her and also taunting
her. Whenever the deceased used to visit her parental home,
she complained about the ill-treatment at the hands of the
accused persons. Between 21.10.2008 and 23.10.2008, because
of the constant mental and physical torture at the hands of
the accused, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into
the well. 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.38 of 2009. 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 13 witnesses and also produced 8 documentary
Page 2 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 3 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,
therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by
appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the
respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by
the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned
trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal
by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral
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 filed
vide Exh.22 dated 05.10.2008, wherein it has been stated
that the marriage of the deceased – Surtiben was solemnized
with accused No.1 before around 8 months before the alleged
incident; and that whenever the deceased used to come to
Page 4 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
her parental house, she complained about the mental and
physical harassment to her by the accused; and that
harassment was such that she has no other option but to
jump into the well.
In the said complaint, it is also stated that on
21.10.2008 at around 2:00 p.m., accused No.1 had called the
complainant and inquired about the deceased and pursuant to
the said phone call, the complainant and the other family
members had gone at the house of the accused to find the
deceased, but they could not get any satisfactory reply. It is
only thereafter they came to know that the deceased had
jumped into the well and committed suicide. It is the case of
the complainant that because of the constant harassment of
the accused, the deceased has committed suicide.
8.2 The complainant – Revabhai Somabhai Bariya, who
is the father of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.7,
vide Exh.18; the brother of the deceased viz., Kalsingbhai
Revabhai Bariya has been examined as P.W.8, vide Exh.20.
His wife viz., Ramilaben Kalsingbhai has been examined as
P.W.9, vide Exh.21.
The cousin of the deceased viz., Dineshbhai
Bhemabhai Bariya has been examined as P.W.10, vide
Exh.22, who has stated that he does not know the exact
reason for the alleged quarrel that was there at the
Page 5 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
matrimonial home of the deceased.
8.3 The prosecution has produced the inquest
panchnama vide Exh.8. The panch witnesses of the said
inquest panchnama viz., Rameshbhai Navalsing Patel and
Bijiben Ranchhodbhai Labana have been examined as P.W.1
and P.W.2, vide Exhs.7 and 9, respectively. Both have turned
hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
The prosecution has produced the panchnama of
scene of offence vide Exh.11 and the body/arrest panchnama
of accused No.3 at Exh.12. The panch of the said panchnama
viz., Natvarbhai Lalabhai Labada has been examined as
P.W.3, vide Exh.10.
The panchnama of clothes etc., recovered from the
dead body of the deceased is produced vide Exh.15 and the
panch witnesses of the said panchnama viz., Saybabhai
Balkabhai and Mavsingbhai Vechatbhai Patel have been
examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5, vide Exhx.14 and 16,
respectively. Both have turned hostile and have not supported
the case of the prosecution.
The prosecution has examined Shankarbhai
Shimlabhai Labada as P.W.6, vide Exh.17. He has stated
that he was present when the dead body of the deceased was
taken out from the well in presence of the police officers.
Page 6 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
8.4 The prosecution has examined Dr.Shaileshkumar
Vinodbhai Parmar as P.W.13, vide Exh.28, who has
performed the postmortem of the deceased. In his deposition,
he has stated that there was no injury mark on the body of
the deceased. The postmortem report is produced vide Exh.30
and according to the said postmortem report, the reason for
the death was due to drowning in the well.
In the FSL report also, which is produced vide
Exh.27, it is stated that diatoms are found from the body.
As per the said report, P.W.13 – the doctor opined that the
death of the deceased was because of drowning. The cause of
death was because of suicide and/or accidental death.
8.5 The prosecution has examined Ramanbhai
Gokalbhai as P.W.11, vide Exh.23.
The Investigating Officer viz., Jivaji Alkhaji
Bhagora has been examined as P.W.12, vide Exh.25. In his
deposition, he has stated that he had not taken the
statement of any neighbours residing near the matrimonial
home of the deceased; and that he has also not checked the
medical report of the deceased in view of the allegations of
the fact that the deceased was suffering from Tuberculosis.
8.6 The prosecution has not been able to prove as to
what cruelty was done by the accused on the deceased. There
Page 7 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
are lot of contradictions in the complaint and the deposition
of the complainant, wherein, in the complaint, the
complainant does not state that on 21.10.2008, he had also
checked the well and could not find the deceased in the well.
Whereas, in his examination-in-chief, the said complainant
stated that on the first date i.e. on 21.10.2008, when he had
gone to search the deceased, he had gone to the well and
found that there was nothing inside the well.
8.7 The prosecution has examined Shankarbhai
Shimlabhai Labada as P.W.6, vide Exh.17. He was present
when the dead body was recovered from the well. Other than
that, the said witness has not deposed about any alleged
incident of cruelty meted by the accused to the deceased.
8.8 If the deposition of the complainant is taken into
consideration, in the complaint the complainant has stated
that the accused used to physically harass the deceased but
in the deposition, the said complainant has not stated about
the physical harassment by the accused on the deceased.
The prosecution has also not been able to prove
that the fact which has been stated by the complainant that
earlier, the deceased had informed the complainant that since
the accused are harassing the deceased, she has no other
option but to jump into the well and commit suicide.
Page 8 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
In the complaint, it is also not stated that on the
first date i.e. 21.10.2008, when the complainant had gone to
search for the deceased, they could not find her dead body in
the well. The fact of earlier harassment has also not been
proved by the prosecution in view of the fact that there is
no complaint and/or medical report to prove the said fact.
8.9 If the oral evidence of the brother of the deceased
i.e. Kalsingbhai Revabhai Bariya, who has been examined as
P.W.8, vide Exh.20, is taken into consideration, he has also
not supported the case of the prosecution as to how and
what kind of harassment was done by the accused to the
deceased. Moreover, he has also stated that the deceased was
tired due to disease of Tuberculosis. The prosecution has
failed to prove that there was no harassment and/or cruelty
for which the deceased has committed suicide.
8.10 The cousin of the deceased i.e. Dineshbhai
Bhemabhai Bariya has been examined as P.W.10, vide
Exh.22. He has stated that he was not aware as to the
reason for the alleged quarrel that was taken place between
the deceased and the accused.
From the evidence of the medical officer –
Dr.Shaileshkumar Vinodbhai Parmar, who has been examined
as P.W.13, vide Exh.28, it clearly states that the deceased
Page 9 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
has died because of the suicide and/or accidental death and
the cause of death is because of drowning.
The P.S.I. – Jivajibhai Alkhaji Bhagora, who has
been examined as P.W.12, vide Exh.25, has also not taken
the statement of any of the relatives of the accused who are
staying at the matrimonial home.
None of the independent witnesses has been
examined by the prosecution to prove the case of mental and
physical harassment by the accused to the deceased. The
deceased has committed suicide because of the alleged act of
harassment to her.
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
Page 10 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
not been able to prove that the accused have stimulated the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.2 The prosecution has not proved that there was a
clear motive to commit the offence of abatement. The
prosecution has also not proved that the accused proceeded to
encourage and/or irritate the deceased through words or
insults and that the accused intended to urge the deceased to
end it all by committing suicide. The prosecution has also
not been able to prove the direct connection between the
incitement and committal of suicide. The prosecution has also
not been able to prove direct or indirect act of incitement to
the commitment of suicide. The prosecution has also not been
able to prove by accusation of harassment without any
positive action on the part of the accused close to the time
of occurrence that led and forced the deceased to commit
suicide.
9.3 The present matter turns on whether the conduct
attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of
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
Page 11 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
had a role in provoking or facilitating that suicide. Therefore,
this twin test distinction is required to be borne in mind.
9.4 Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence,
is not a broad moral expression but a term of precise
statutory meaning. Section 107 IPC delineates its contours:
instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. Each of these
modes presupposes active involvement. The law does not
punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional
encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.
9.5 It is therefore not sufficient to show that the
deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant
treatment. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently underscored that routine
domestic disagreements, suspicion between spouses, orepisodes of harassment do not ipso facto amount to
instigation. Rigours of this Section intervene only where there
is clear evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link
between the accused’s conduct and the decision of the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.6 The concept of instigation demands something more
than mere reproach or accusation. It connotes an active
suggestion, an incitement, or conduct of such intensity that it
Page 12 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
operates upon the mind of the victim and pushes him or her
toward this drastic and unfortunate step. The prosecution
therefore, must demonstrate either a deliberate intention to
drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct
in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally
indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists
on a live and immediate nexus between the acts complained
of and the suicide. A remote or generalized allegation is
insufficient. There must be evidence showing that the accused
engaged in conduct so closely connected in time and effect
with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to 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 thereevidence 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.
Page 13 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment
lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional
doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. Instigation
is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
“an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it
is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being
spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.
10.1 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations
are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been
held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section
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
Page 14 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved
and established by prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy
requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or
by a continued course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that deceased was left with no other option,
except to commit suicide.
10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus
State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has been held
that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms
of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.
10.3 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020)
15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306
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.
Page 15 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
10.4 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244,
it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the
part of the accused proximate to the date on which the
deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not
only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be
of such a nature that the deceased was left with no
alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.
11. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show
any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that
the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest
illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court
below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above
view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Court below was completely justified in passing
impugned judgment and order.
12. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial
Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence
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
Page 16 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record
and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has
rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the
judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija
Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the
view of the trial court on the evidence to
repeat the narration of the evidence or to
reiterate the reasons given by the trial
court expression of 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.
Page 17 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
under:
“The powers of the High Court in an appeal
from order of acquittal to reassess the
evidence and reach its own conclusions
under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as
extensive as in any appeal against the order
of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it
is desirable that the High Court should give
proper weight and consideration to the view
of the Trial Court with regard to the
credibility of the witness, the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused, the right
of the accused to the benefit of any doubt
and 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 samecannot entirely and effectively be dislodged
or demolished, the High Court should not
Page 18 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
disturb the order of acquittal.”
16. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing
with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial
Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.
It is further observed that High Court’s interference in such
appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by
the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court
should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the
belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have
taken a different view.
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:
Page 19 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts
no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate
court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact
and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial
and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient
grounds”, “very strong circumstances”,
“distorted 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
Page 20 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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.”
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 materialPage 21 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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.
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
Page 22 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2415/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
& Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
SRILATHA
Page 23 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:19:29 IST 2026