Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shankarbhai Bharubhai Rathwa on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 16/03/2026
Pronounced On : 08/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 630 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHANKARBHAI BHARUBHAI RATHWA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. TIRHTRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR M A CHAUHAN(11262) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.07.2009, passed by
the learned 2
nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in Sessions
Case No.126 of 2007, 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’s daughter was
married in June 2005, and initially lived peacefully with her
husband and in-laws, but after some time she was subjected
to continuous mental and physical harassment by her
Page 1 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
husband, mother-in-law, and other relatives, including
demands and ill-treatment, due to which she frequently
returned to her parental home and narrated her grievances,
despite attempts at reconcilliation, the harassment persisted,
and on the day of the incident in the early morning,
information was received that she had fallen into a well, and
upon reaching the spot, the complainant found her dead,
leading him to allege that her death was not accidental but
the result of sustained in-laws, which either drove her to
commit suicide or resulted in her being pushed. 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.126 of 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 examined 8 witnesses and also produced 5 documentary
evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the
Page 2 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
impugned judgment are as under;
Oral Evidences
Sr. No. Exh. No. Oral Evidence
1. 10 Dr. Manoharlal Dalchand Kuri, who conducted the
postmortem of the deceased Ramtiben.
2. 14 Panch witness, Samantsinh.
3. 21 Mr. Pratapbhai Bhalajibhai Dayra, father of the
deceased Ramtiben.
4. 25 Abheysinh Pratapsinh Dayra, elder brother of the
deceased Ramtiben.
5. 26 Subhashbhai Pratapbhai Dayra, younger brother of
the deceased Ramtiben.
6. 28 Santokben Abheysinh Dayra, sister-in-law of the
deceased Ramtiben.
7. 29 Kamlaben Pratabhai Dayra
8. 30 Rupabhai Manabhai Parmar, the Investigating
Officer.
Documentary evidences
Sr. No. Exh.No. Documentary Evidence
1. 07 Inquest Panchnama.
2. 08 Panchnama regarding the clothes on the
dead body.
Page 3 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
3. 11 PM Report.
4. 15 Crime Scene Report.
5. 22 Original complaint.
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
Page 4 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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
dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with
the Court;
8.1 The prosecution has mainly relied on the
complaint, that has been filed by the father of the deceased
Page 5 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
which is produced vide Exh-22, wherein, it is the case of the
prosecution that the marriage of the deceased Ramtiben with
Accused No. 1 took place somewhere around June 2005, and
after the marriage the deceased Ramtiben used to come often
to her parental house, and even the brothers and sisters of
the deceased used to come to their matrimonial home to get
the deceased to her parental house during his lifetime.
8.2 In the said complaint, produced vide Exh-22, the
complainant father of the deceased had also stated that, the
Accused No. 1 and the deceased also used to come together
to the parental house of the deceased and used to stay for a
day, and thereafter, they used to go together, and in the
initial 5-6 months of the marriage there were cordial relation
between the deceased and the accused. It has been stated in
the complaint that on one of the occasion when the deceased
had come to her parental house, she had narrated the fact
that the Accused No. 2 had taken the locket which was in
the locker which belonged to the deceased, and thereafter,
the Accused No. 2 did not permit the deceased to wear the
said locket. It has also been alleged that time, and again the
deceased used to come to her parental house, and used to
inform that the Accused No. 2 and 3 were not talking to the
deceased and were not eating the food prepared by the
deceased. It has also been stated that Accused No. 2 and 3
Page 6 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
used to tell the deceased that they want Accused No. 2 to
marry again, and the said complainant has alleged that the
deceased was harassed. In view of the fact that accused had
an affair with the daughter of Dhansukbhai Bhanubhai
Vanderia, and as and when the deceased used to tell the
Accused No.1 about the same, he used to threaten the
deceased of her life, and it is alleged that because of the
said harassment of the accused, the deceased had committed
suicide.
8.3 The father of the complainant has been examined
vide Exh- 21, wherein he has stated that none of the family
members of the accused were talking to the deceased at her
matrimonial home, on the last occasion when the deceased
had come to the parental house she had come with her other
daughter, Samath i.e. the sister of the deceased and her
husband Jayesh. The fact remains that the prosecution has
neither examined daughter Samath or the brother-in-law
Jayesh, whom the complainant had met while coming from
the matrimonial home.
8.4 The complainant has made allegations with respect
to the fact that the Accused No.1 had an affair with
daughter of Dhansukbhai Bhanubhai but neither the
prosecution had been able to identify Dhansukbhai Bhanubhai
nor his daughter. Moreover, in cross-examination it
Page 7 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
transpires that the complainant had gone to the police
station to file a complaint, even when the dead body of the
deceased was found in the well, and also the fact that when
the deceased had come for the last time to the parental
house, the Accused No.1 had gone for the labour work.
8.5 The brother of the deceased, and the son of the
complainant Abhaysinh Dayra has been examined as PW-4,
vide Exh- 25, in his deposition he has stated that the
relation between the accused and the deceased was cordial
for the first seven months of their marriage. The said
witnesses has stated that, when the deceased had come to
her parental house she had informed that Accused No. 1 had
gone out of town and Accused No.2 and 3 were not talking
to her, and were not eating the food prepared by the
deceased and also were taunting the deceased that they do
not like her and wanted to get Accused No. 1 married to
another lady. He has also stated that after the festival of
Holi, Kanubhai, Dhansukbhai and Shankarbhai had come to
parental house of the deceased to take her to the
matrimonial home. The fact remains that the prosecution has
not examined the said Kanubhai, Dhansukbhai and
Shankarbhai to prove the said fact.
8.6 Moreover, the said witness also states that after
talking to Accused No. 1, he assured that he will not repeat
Page 8 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
the said mistake and it is only after the said assurance that
the brother of the deceased had permitted the deceased to go
to her matrimonial home. If the complaint filed by the
complainant and his deposition and the evidence of the
prosecution is taken into consideration, all the said deposition
talks about the fact that the cousin sister of the deceased
Ramilaben was the first person to find out that the deceased
had jumped into the well, but the prosecution has not
examined the said Ramileben as a witness to the case of the
prosecution. The said witness i.e. PW-4 also admits that after
the marriage more or less the deceased was staying at her
parental house, and she was residing at her parental house
before the date of the incident, and the deceased was happy
at her house. The said witness also is not able to prove and
identify the daughter of Dhansukbhai Batubhai.
8.7 The other brother of the deceased Subhash Dayra
has been examined as PW-5, vide Exh-26, he has also
reiterated that what has been stated by the other witnesses.
He has also admitted the fact that the deceased was happy
at her parental house. The wife of PW-4, Santokben
Abhaysinh Dayra has been examined as PW-6, vide Exh-28,
she has improvised the allegation of cruelty by stating that
the accused used to taunt the deceased for not being fair.
She has admitted that after marriage more or less the
Page 9 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
deceased was staying at her parental house, and she was
staying there for at least four months from the date of
occurrence of the incident.
8.8 The mother of the deceased Kamlaben Dayra has
been examined as PW-7, vide Exh-29, she said that she was
not an eye witness to the said incident, and at the same
time she has also stated that the deceased fell down into the
well while fetching water from it. The prosecution has
examined Rupabhai Manabhai Parmar, the Police Officer who
had stated that the complaint filed vide Exh-22, has been
noted by the Police Officer Gulabsinh Salubhai, and said
Gulabsinh Salubhai has not been examined by the
prosecution. If the entire evidence is taken into consideration,
the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was
subjected to harassment and was instigated to commit
suicide.
8.9 The prosecution has examined PW-1, Dr. Mohanlal
Dalchand Kuri vide Exh-10, who was the Medical Officer at
PHC, Dahod, who had conducted the postmortem and the
postmortem report was produced vide Exh-11, and the cause
of death as stated in the postmortem report was asphyxia
due to drowning. The panchnama of scene of offence is
produced vide Exh-15, and the panch Samantsinh has been
examined as PW-2, vide Exh-14.
Page 10 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
8.10 The allegations that have been made are with
respect to that the accused were not eating the food that
was prepared by the deceased, and the Accused No.1 was
having an extra marital affair with the daughter of
Dhansukbhai, but the fact remains that the prosecution has
not been able to trace said Dhansukbhai or his daughter,
and or prove the case that Accused No.1 had an extra
martial affair with the daughter of Dhansukbhai. Moreover,
the fact also remains that the witnesses of the prosecution
i.e. the family members of the deceased themselves have said
that the deceased was most of the time residing at her
parental house, and when the deceased used to come to her
parental house the Accused No.1 was also accompanying her.
8.11 The fact that the deceased had last come to her
parental house with her other daughter, Samath i.e. the
sister of the deceased and her husband Jayesh, the
prosecution has not examined them. Moreover, the brother of
the deceased, i.e. PW-4 has also stated that one Kanubhai
Dhansukbhai and Shankarbhai had come to get the deceased
from her parental house, and the prosecution has also not
examined the said witnesses.
8.12 Moreover, the witness who had first found out
that the deceased has fallen into the well, Ramilaben, i.e. the
Page 11 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
cousin of the deceased was not examined by the prosecution,
and the mother of the deceased also stated that the deceased
fell down while fetching the water from the well. The
Sessions Court has rightly taken into consideration all the
said relevant facts and acquitted the deceased from the
offence under Section 498(A), 306, 114 of the IPC.
9. The evidence on record and the glaring omission
on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of
doubt that the order passed by the trial Court is as per law.
The trial Court has rightly held that there was no positive
evidence on record to prove that the accused by way of the
conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually aided
and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner
that it leaves no other option for the deceased but to commit
suicide. In the present case, the prosecution has also not
been able to prove the clear motive of the accused to commit
offence of abatement. There is also no close connection
between the accused’s action and the deceased’s choice to
commit suicide. In view of the said fact, the prosecution has
not been able to prove that the accused have stimulated the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.1 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
Page 12 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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.
9.2 The present matter turns on whether the conduct
attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of
abetment of suicide. Therefore, read as a whole, it can be
said that mere occurrence of a suicide does not automatically
trigger rigours of the Section. The penal consequences under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code arise when the
prosecution is able to establish that the accused abetted and
had a role in provoking or facilitating that suicide. Therefore,
this twin test distinction is required to be borne in mind.
9.3 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:
Page 13 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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.
9.4 It is therefore not sufficient to show that the
deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant
treatment. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently underscored that routine
domestic disagreements, suspicion between spouses, or
episodes of harassment do not ipso facto amount to
instigation. Rigours of this Section intervene only where there
is clear evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link
between the accused’s conduct and the decision of the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.5 The concept of instigation demands something more
than mere reproach or accusation. It connotes an active
suggestion, an incitement, or conduct of such intensity that it
operates upon the mind of the victim and pushes him or her
toward this drastic and unfortunate step. The prosecution
therefore, must demonstrate either a deliberate intention to
drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct
in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally
indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists
Page 14 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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.
9.6 No material has been brought on record
demonstrating any proximate act immediately preceding the
suicide which could be construed as instigation. Nor is there
evidence of a positive act amounting to intentional aid. The
essential ingredients of abetment -namely, culpable mental
state coupled with active or proximate conduct-are not
established.
9.7 On an overall assessment of the evidence, the
prosecution has failed to demonstrate the existence of the
foundational elements necessary to sustain a conviction under
Section 306 IPC.
10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment
lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional
doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. Instigation
Page 15 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
“an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it
is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being
spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.
10.1 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations
are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been
held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section
306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission
of said offence, person who is said to have abetted
commission of suicide must have played active role by act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of
suicide. It has been further observed that the act of
abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved
and established by prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy
requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or
by a continued course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that deceased was left with no other option,
Page 16 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
except to commit suicide.
10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus
State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has been held
that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms
of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.
10.3 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020)
15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306
and 107 of IPC, the Court held that conviction under Section
306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide.
10.4 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244,
it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the
part of the accused proximate to the date on which the
deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not
only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be
Page 17 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
of such a nature that the deceased was left with no
alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.
11. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show
any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that
the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest
illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court
below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above
view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Court below was completely justified in passing
impugned judgment and order.
12. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial
Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence
connecting the accused with the incident and there are
contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that
the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive
of the accused behind the incident is not established. The
trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record
and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has
rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the
Page 18 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija
Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the
view of the trial court on the evidence to
repeat the narration of the evidence or to
reiterate the reasons given by the trial
court expression of general agreement with
the reasons given by the Court the decision
of which is under appeal, will ordinarily
suffice.”
14. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the
reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the
discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
under:
"The powers of the High Court in an Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined
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 same cannot entirely and
effectively be dislodged or demolished, the
High Court should not disturb the order
of acquittal.”
16. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of
Page 20 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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:
(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 onPage 21 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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 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
Page 22 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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
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.”
Page 23 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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
& Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
ADITYA SINGH
Page 24 of 24
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:36 IST 2026
