Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sanjaysinh Bharatsinh Jadeja on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 18/03/2026
Pronounced On : 08/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1348 of 2009
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SANJAYSINH BHARATSINH JADEJA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT,APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DP JOSHI(1163) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.02.2009 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No.1, Khambhaliya in Case No. 32/2007 for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 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 lower Court, is that the complainant alleged that
while returning with his family from G.G. Hospital, Jamnagar
to Village Samana on 06.09.2007, a dispute took place in an
Page 1 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
S.T. Bus regarding tickets and fare. It is the case of the
prosecution that at Samana Bus Stand, the accused conductor
and driver abused, threatened and assaulted the complainant
and also insulted him by caste name in public view.
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 for the
offences as alleged. 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 Special
(Atrocity) Case No.32/2007. 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 produced 12 oral evidences and 18 documentary evidences
in total before the trial Court, which are described in the
impugned judgment are as under:
Oral evidences
Sr. No. Exh.No. Names Particulars
1. 10 Mahendrabhai Mulajibhai Complainant and
Vaghela Injured.
Page 2 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
2. 12 Nathabhai Rupabhai Eye witness
Vaghela
3. 13 Nanjibhai Laljibhai Eye witness
Vaghela
4. 14 Somiben Nanjibhai Eye witness
Vaghela
5. 16 Danabhai Amrabhai Panch of local area.
6. 18 Dr. Deepak Premjibhai Medical Officer who
Meghpara treated the
complainant.
7. 23 Kamiben w/o Wife of the complainant
Mahendrabhai Vaghela and eye witness.
8. 24 Khimiben w/o Muljibhai Mother of the
Vaghela complainant and eye
witness.
9. 27 Sanjay Kumar Naranbhai Police who registered
Chaudhari (P.S.I) the FIR.
10. 31 Nagabhai Rudabhai Depot Manager.
Makwana
11. 36 PradeepbWife of the Witness regarding the
complainant and eye Caste Certificate of the
witness.hai Manilal complainant.
Pathak
12. 58 Jentibhai Vecharbhai Investigating Officer,
Vasava (Deputy who conducted the
Superintendent of Police) investigation and filed
the charge-sheet.
Page 3 of 26 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined Documentary evidences Sr.No Exh.No Documents 1. 11 Original Complaint. 2. 17 Panchnama of the place of offence. 3. 19 Yadi sent to the Medical Officer by Police, for
conducting medical examination of the
complainant.
4. 20 Injury Certificate of the Complainant.
5. 21 Photocopy of the medico-legal case papers
pertaining to accused Sanjaysinh Bharatsinh
Jadeja.
6. 22 Panchnama of arrest of the accused persons.
7. 28 Handwritten copy of the extract of the station
diary.
8. 29 Atrocity Form.
9. 30 Photocopy of Police requisition sent to the Taluka
Development Officer, Jamjodhpur, for obtaining the
caste certificate of the accused.
10. 32 Photocopy of the State Transport Way Bill.
11. 37 Original caste certificate of the complainant.
12. 38 Register extract showing issuance of the caste
certificate.
13. 40 Offence Register pertaining to the Atrocity Offence.
14. 41 Forwarding letter accompanying the order
appointing Dy.S.P. Shri Vasava as the
Page 4 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Investigating Officer.
15. 42 Order of appointment for investigation.
16. 43 Official communication recording that the arrest of
the accused be entered in the station diary and
arrest register.
17. 44 Caste Certificate of the accused persons.
18. 45 Certificate issued by the concerned Gram
Panchayat in respect of the caste status of the
complainant.
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 they
were charged, 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
Page 5 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the
contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and
ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the
accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that
the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It
is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen
that the evidence produced on record is reliable and
believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,
therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by
appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the
respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by
the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned
trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal
by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and
Page 6 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with
the Court:
8.1 In the complaint provided vide Exh-11, it is also stated
that in view of the fact that the said bus used to regularly
come to their village, the complainant used to know Accused
No. 1, who was the conductor of the bus and Accused No. 2
who was the driver of the bus. The complainant purchased
three tickets, and had paid an amount of Rs.100/- to the
conductor upon which the conductor returned Rs.40/-, but did
not issue tickets. Therefore, the complainant demanded
tickets. In the said complaint, he has also stated that when
the bus reached Samana village bus stand at around 12:00
pm, at that time he had again asked the conductor for the
tickets, but the conductor did not give the tickets, and
started abusing the complainant in filthy language, and when
the complainant got down from the bus, he was abused of
his caste and Accused No.1 started assaulting the
complainant. At that time, Accused No. 2 also got down from
the bus, and started abusing the complainant and then the
mother and the wife intervened, and Accused No. 1 also
abused the mother and the wife of the complainant of their
caste, and at that time, the Village Sarpanch. Somiben
Nanjibhai and Nathabhai. Rupabhai Vaghela and Nanjibhai
Page 7 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
were present and intervened. In the complaint he has stated
that as he got frightened, he came back to his residence and
from the residence he had called the police, and when the
police officers came, he reached the police station along with
the police and filed a complaint.
8.2. The complainant has been examined at Exh-10 as
PW-1. In his cross-examination, the complainant has stated
that the incident occurred at Samana village bus stand,
which is a public place where any person could witness the
occurrence. It is pertinent to note that, for the applicability
of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, it is necessary that
the accused and the complainant were previously acquainted
with each other. Upon appreciation of the evidence of the
complainant, it emerges from his examination-in-chief that he
has stated that Accused No. 1 Sanjaysinh, the conductor,
belongs to a nearby village and frequently visits his village,
and therefore, he knows him. However, it does not transpire
from his deposition that the accused was acquainted with or
knew the complainant. Furthermore, in his cross-examination,
the complainant has admitted that prior to the incident, he
had never met either the driver or the conductor of the bus.
He has also stated that after the incident, on one occasion,
the accused and he met in the bus, and even at that time,
the accused did not recognize him, and therefore, the
Page 8 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
complainant himself had introduced his identity to the
accused. Thus, from the cross-examination of the complainant,
it clearly emerges that the accused was not acquainted with
the complainant prior to the incident.
8.3. The prosecution has examined Nathabhai Rupabhai
Vaghela, the uncle of the complainant, as PW-2 at Exh-12.
He has deposed that he had seen the driver and conductor of
the bus assaulting his nephew, Mahendra. However, he has
categorically stated that he did not hear the accused uttering
any caste-related abusive words or issuing any threats to his
nephew on the basis of caste. Thus, as per the testimony of
this witness, it is not established that the accused had
abused or insulted the complainant with reference to his
caste. This witness has been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
8.4. The prosecution has thereafter examined, Nanjibhai
Valjibhai Vaghela as PW-3, who has turned hostile and not
supported the case of the prosecution. The said witness has
stated that he had gone to the bus stand to drop his
daughter. In his deposition, he has only stated that he had
seen that there was some quarrel going on between the
accused and the complainant, other than that he was not
aware of any other fact. In his cross-examination, he has also
Page 9 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
stated that there were other persons also standing at the bus
stand at the time of quarrel. The complainant also in his
complaint has stated that there were other passengers in the
bus at the time of incident. He has also stated that there
were officers of the Samana Air Force, and students who
commuting daily were present on the same bus. In his
deposition, the complainant has also stated that when the
bus had left Jamnagar City, the entire bus was full, and
when the bus reached Samana village bus stop, there were
five or six passengers who wanted to get down at Samana.
8.5. The wife of PW-3, Nanjibhai has been examined as PW-
4, vide Exh-14. In her deposition, she has stated that the
accused had abused the complainant of his caste. The said
fact has not been stated by her husband who has been
examined as PW-3, vide Exh-13. Therefore, there is a
contradiction in the deposition of PW-3 and PW-4, who
alleged to be present at the time of incident, and who were
also distantly related to the complainant and are also of the
same caste of the complainant and are also residing at
Harijanvas along with the complainant. In her deposition, she
has stated that the accused used caste-related words against
Mahendra. However, this witness has not specified as to
which particular accused uttered such caste-related words,
and has merely made a general statement referring to “the
Page 10 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
accused” collectively. Thus, this witness introduces a version
which is materially different from that of the complainant,
his mother, and his wife. Further, the husband of this
witness, namely Nanji Vaghela, P.W.3, has deposed that he
had gone to the Samana bus stand along with his wife to
drop their daughter. This witness has categorically stated
that he did not hear any of the accused uttering caste-related
words to complainant. Thus, both these witnesses, who are
husband and wife and were present at the same time and
place, have given contradictory versions. This creates an
inherent inconsistency in the case of the prosecution.
8.6. The prosecution has examined Dr. Deepak Meghpara as
PW-6, vide Exh-18, he is the treating doctor who had treated
the complainant and Accused No. 1 i.e. Sanjaysinh and the
Medical Certificate with the said effect of treating the
complainant is produced vide Exh-20, in which the said
complainant has not given history that he was assaulted at
the bus stand by the accused. The Medical Certificate with
respect to the injury of Accused No. 1 is produced vide Exh-
21. The said doctor has deposed that the complainant did not
disclose the name of any assailant at the time of medical
examination. If the complainant had been acquainted with
any of the accused, he would have certainly disclosed the
name of the assailant. Therefore, the fact that the
Page 11 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
complainant did not mention the name of any assailant
before the Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, clearly
indicates that the complainant was not acquainted with the
accused prior to the incident. Further, Dr. Medhpara has
deposed that when the complainant again approached him, he
was in a normal and conscious condition and was capable of
giving the history of the injuries. This indicates that the
injuries sustained by the complainant were not of a serious
nature.
8.7. The prosecution has thereafter examined the mother of
the complainant, Khimiben, has been examined as P.W.8 at
Exh-24, and the wife of the complainant, Kamiben, has been
examined as P.W.7 at Exh-23. Upon comparing their
testimonies with that of the complainant, it emerges that the
complainant, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that
Accused No. 1 abused him with caste-related derogatory
words, assaulted him by kicking and beating him, and
thereafter pushed him out of the bus through the door.
However, upon perusal of the testimony of his mother,
Khimiben, she has deposed that Accused No. 1 started
assaulting her son by kicking and beating him and uttered
caste-related abusive words, stating that he deserved to be
beaten. Thus, there are material inconsistencies between the
testimonies of the complainant and his mother. The aforesaid
Page 12 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
contradictions in the testimonies of both these witnesses
create doubt as to what exactly was uttered by Accused No.
1, thereby indicating material discrepancies in their versions
of the incident.
8.8. There is a contradiction in her deposition and the
deposition of the complainant wherein, the complainant states
that he along with his mother, wife Somiben, all had gone to
register the police complaint, whereas, the said wife of
complainant states in her deposition that the complainant
along with his mother had gone to file a complaint. In her
cross-examination, she has also stated that, between
Jamnagar and Samana village, there was no quarrel between
the complainant and the conductor i.e. Accused No.1.
8.9. She has also admitted that there was lot of rush while
getting down from the village Samana bus stop. She has also
stated that before the incident she has never met the driver
and conductor of the bus. The prosecution has thereafter
examined the mother of the complainant who state that the
bus was full of passengers till the bus reached Samana bus
stop and there was no place even to sit in the same bus.
She has also deposed that she along with her son
complainant and his wife had gone to the police station to
file the complaint, and Sarpanch Somiben, her husband
Page 13 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Nanjibhai and Nathabhai had not accompanied them at the
police station.
8.10. The PSI Sanjaybhai Choudhary has been examined
as PW-9 vide Exh-27. In his cross examination he has stated
that before filing the complaint no phone call was received
regarding the said complaint. The said statement is contrary
to what the complainant has stated. In the complaint, the
complainant has stated that as they were afraid of the
accused they had called the police and after the police had
reached their residence they had reached the police station
accompanied by the police officers.
8.11. The depot manager has been examined as PW-10,
vide Exh-31. Further, as per the evidence of the Depot
Manager, no complaint was received against the conductor for
any misconduct. Thus, from the testimony of this witness,
there is no material to show that Accused No. 1 committed
any illegality or acted in breach of duty. It is admitted by
the witnesses that the bus was heavily crowded, and it
appears that the dispute arose on account of inconvenience in
boarding or alighting from the bus. In such circumstances, it
cannot be said that the accused had any intention or motive
to commit the alleged offence. There is no clear, cogent, and
sufficient evidence on record to establish that the incident
Page 14 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
was initiated by the accused.
8.12. The prosecution has examined Pradeep K. Pathak vide
Exh-36 as PW-11, he is the officer who had produced the
caste certificate of the deceased which is produced vide Exh-
37.
8.13. The prosecution has examined Jayantibhai Vasava
as PW-12, vide Exh-39, who was the D.Y.S.P, an
Investigating Officer. In his deposition he has admitted that
there were a lot of shops surrounding the bus stop. He has
admitted that no statements have been taken from any of
the passengers travelling in the said bus.
8.14. The Sessions Court has taken into consideration,
the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, the fact
remains that PW-2 examined vide Exh 12, i.e. Nathabhai
does not state that the accused had abused the complainant
of his caste. The said witness states that he was present at
the time of incident. The other factor which is also needed,
to be taken into consideration that the accused had also filed
criminal case against the complainant under the Sections of
332, 323, 504, 506(2) read with 114 of the IPC.
8.15. The prosecution has failed to examine any
Page 15 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
independent passengers travelling on the bus or any
shopkeepers in the vicinity of the bus stand. The prosecution
has examined only such witnesses who are either related to
or belong to the same community as the complainant. As
regards Somiben, the Sarpanch of the village, merely by
virtue of her position, it cannot be presumed that she is an
independent or impartial witness.
8.16. Furthermore, the case is one of a cross-complaint;
therefore, it becomes necessary to determine as to which
party was the initial aggressor. Both sides have lodged
complaints alleging assault against each other, indicating a
case of mutual altercation. The defence of the accused is that
the complainant, along with his mother and wife, had
obstructed the accused in the discharge of his official duties,
and in order to evade the consequences thereof, the present
false complaint has been lodged.
8.17. As per the prosecution, the complainant paid Rs.
100/- for three tickets, out of which Rs. 40/- were returned
but tickets were allegedly not issued. However, the fare for
three persons was Rs. 63/-, indicating that the correct
amount was deducted. Further, as per the Depot Manager’s
evidence (Exh. 31) and the waybill (Exh. 32), eight tickets
were issued from Jamnagar to Samana, and in absence of
Page 16 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
any evidence showing more passengers, it can be inferred
that the complainant’s tickets were included therein.
8.18 In the present case, the prosecution has failed to
examine any independent witnesses. It has come on record
that a number of students regularly travel by this bus, and
considering their school and college timings, such witnesses
could have been easily available even after the incident.
Despite the availability of such independent witnesses, no
efforts were made to record their statements, which fact has
been admitted in the cross-examination of the prosecution
witness. The witness has also admitted that other passengers
from village Samana were travelling on the bus. In such
circumstances, the complainant would have been acquainted
with them; however, no attempt was made by the
Investigating Officer to ascertain their names and addresses
or to examine them. Thus, despite the availability of
independent witnesses, the prosecution has failed to bring any
such evidence on record.
9. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case
against the accused for the offence as alleged. Moreover, as
per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Sajan Sakhariya Vs. State of Kerala and others
Page 17 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557, every insult or intimidation
would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult or intimidation is
started at a victim because he is a member of a particular
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, from the
allegations made in the complaint, the prosecution has not
proved that the accused is guilty of an offence under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The trial Court, while considering the evidences in
detail, has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove
the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While
discussing the evidence in detail, the trial court has found
that the only allegation against the accused is of speaking
indecent words against the caste of the complainant. The
trial Court has gone into the evidence in detail and has
come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the
alleged offence.
10. 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
Page 18 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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.
11. 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.
12. 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
Page 19 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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.”
13. 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.
14. 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 anyPage 20 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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 cannot entirely and
effectively be dislodged or demolished,
the High Court should not disturb the
order of acquittal.”
15. 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
Page 21 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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.
16. 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.
Page 22 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
(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 available to him under thePage 23 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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.”
17. 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 patentPage 24 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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.”
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove and the
Page 25 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1348/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly.
Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial
Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
ADITYA SINGH
Page 26 of 26
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed Apr 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 22:50:36 IST 2026
