Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Surendrasinh Ramprasad Rajput on 30 June, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 872 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SURENDRASINH RAMPRASAD RAJPUT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS POOJA BASWAL FOR JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
MR DUSHYANT BHATT FOR MR PM DAVE(263) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 30/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment and order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vadodara (at Chhotaudepur)
(hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Atrocity Case No.5
of 2009, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused
(respondents herein) from the offences punishable under Sections
406, 418, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code read
with Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as “the
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
Atrocity Act”).
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant
Amarsing Mansing Rathva registered complaint against the
respondent accused before Jetpurpavi Police Station, which was
registered as M.Case No.8 of 2008 for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 418, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. It is the case of the
prosecution that, in accordance with the law and the terms of the
legal agreement, the respondents accused had entered into an
agreement with the complainant. Lastly, on 20.05.2008, at about
11:00 hours, near Tinbatti Chowk, Jetpur, when the complainant
demanded payment of the money due to him in respect of the sale of
watermelons, the respondents accused became provoked, abused
him, threatened him to kill and committed fraud and criminal breach
of trust and also grabbed the money, and thereby, the respondents
accused by abetting each other committed fraud. Therefore,
complaint was lodged by the complainant as aforesaid.
2.2 On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was initiated
and after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence
against the respondents-accused, charge sheet was filed before the
earned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jetpurpavi. As the offences
committed by the accused persons was exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions as per the provisions of 209 of Criminal Procedure
Code, the learned Judge committed the case to the Court of Sessions
and the case was transferred and placed for trial before the learned
Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, Vadodara (at
Chotaudepur), which came to be numbered as Special (Atrocity) Case
No.5 of 2009.
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
2.3 Thereafter, charge was framed against them for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The accused
persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
Sr. No. Particulars Exh. No. 1 Complainant Amarsing Mansing 23 2 Witness Sonalben Amarsing 34 3 Witness Shankarbhai Mansabhai (Eye Witness) 45 4 Witness Bharatbhai Maganbhai (Eye Witness) 46 5 Witness Vitthalbhai Dhanjibhai (Eye Witness) 48 6 Witness Chhatrasingh Ranchhodbhai, 53 7 Witness Alsingbhai Amarsing 55 8 Witness Ranchhodbhai Hatubhai 68 9 Witness Chandubhai Tersingbhai 89 10 Pradhyumansinh Ramanlal Zala 92
Investigating Officer and Dy.S.P. Veljibhai Jivabhai
11 100
Katara
12 Panch Witness Virendrakumar Dineshchandra Rai 108
13 Panch Witness Jitendrabhai Fogatbhai 109
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the
following documentary evidence.
Sr. No. Documentary Evidence Exh. No. 1 Original Complaint being I-C.R. No. 23/08 25 2 Affidavit regarding the caste of the complainant 26 3 Copies of Village Form No. 8-A and 7/12 Extracts 28 to 33 Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026 undefined Copy of Computer Data from 27/02/2008 to 4 69 02/04/2008 5 Weighbridge Receipts 70 to 86 6 Copy of the Extract of the General Register 90 7 School Leaving Certificate of Amarsing Mansing 91 8 Caste Certificate of Amarsing Mansi Singh 93
Extract of the Register pertaining to the Caste
9 94
Certificate
Notice received by the complainant from the
10 94 – A
Revenue Authority
Forwarding Memo whereby Complaint being I-C.R.
11 101
No. 23/08 was forwarded for investigation
12 Yadi addressed to Jetpur Police Station 102
Yadi addressed to the P.S.O., Jetpur for production
13 103
of the Medical Certificate
Panchnama of the Physical Condition of the
14 104
Accused Persons
Wireless Message addressed to the Superior Officer
15 105
prior to the arrest of the accused persons
Yadi regarding making an entry in the Station Diary
16 106
concerning the arrest of the accused persons
17 Revenue Receipt in the name of the complainant 112
Educational Cess Receipt in the name of the
18 113
complainant
5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that they are innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
8. Heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat, Mr. Dushyant Bhatt, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Mr.P.M. Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 – original accused and Ms.Pooja Baswal,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Jaydeep Sindhi, learned
counsel for the respondent No.4 – original complaint at length.
9. Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which are
narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the
prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary
evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence,
has assailed the impugned judgment and order and submitted that
the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence
connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper
perspective and even the prosecution has been able to prove the
charges levelled against the accused. While referring to the evidence
of the witnesses and the material collected against the accused,
Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
prosecution has established the case against the accused by
examining the witnesses, who have supported the case of the
prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and disbelieved
the evidence of these witnesses. She has submitted that the
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, however,
the trial Court has not appreciated the same and passed the judgment
and order of acquittal which is illegal and unjust. She has submitted
that it is settled legal position that the evidence of a single witness is
sufficient for conviction if the same is reliable and trustworthy and in
the present case, though the evidence of all the witnesses are reliable
and trustworthy, without any cogent reason, the trial Court has
disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the witnesses.
9.1 According to Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have
imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present
appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal.
10. Per contra, Mr.Dushyant Bhatt, learned counsel for the
respondents – accused has supported the impugned judgment and
order and has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any
error of law and fact in acquitting the accused from the charges
levelled against them. He has submitted that the ingredients of the
offence alleged against the accused are not proved beyond
reasonable doubt and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted
the accused as the complainant has failed to prove the charge
levelled against the accused. He has also submitted that there is no
iota of evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime in
question. He has prayed to confirm the impugned judgment and
dismiss the present appeal.
11. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
under:-
(1) whether the trial Court has rightly justified in passing the
judgment and order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
led by the prosecution in recording the reasons.
(3) whether there is any illegality, irregularity and perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. On examining the
case put forward by the prosecution, it appears that PW-1, the
complainant, was cultivating watermelons in the riverbed of Village
Sajod, Taluka Jetpur Pavi. The respondents-accused were engaged in
the business of selling watermelons. Through respondent No. 3,
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 approached the complainant for the
purchase of watermelons. The complainant agreed to sell the
watermelons to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and the parties mutually
agreed upon the price. Accordingly, first-quality watermelons were
sold at the rate of Rs.113/- per 20 kg, while medium-quality
watermelons were sold at the rate of Rs.51/- per 20 kg. The total
value of the transaction amounted to Rs.5,79,031/-, out of which the
respondents-accused had paid a sum of Rs.92,000/- to the
complainant. So far as the remaining amount was concerned, the
respondents-accused refused to pay the same. Consequently, a
dispute arose between the complainant and the respondents-accused.
Instead of lodging an FIR, the complainant filed a private complaint
before the learned Magistrate, being Inquiry Case No.23 of 2008,
alleging that the respondents-accused had committed the offences of
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
cheating and criminal breach of trust by failing to pay the balance
amount due to the complainant. It was further alleged that the
complainant had repeatedly approached the respondents-accused at
their residence and demanded payment of the outstanding amount;
however, the respondents-accused merely gave false assurances and
failed to pay the balance consideration towards the sale of the
watermelons and thus, on the date of the alleged incident, when the
complainant went to the residence of respondent No.1 and demanded
payment of the balance amount due, respondent No.1, with an
intention of intentionally insulting and humiliating the complainant,
allegedly abused him by uttering caste-related derogatory words,
thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of
the Atrocity Act. It emerges from the record that the Inquiry Case was
referred for investigation and during the course of the investigation,
the police found sufficient material to proceed against the
respondent-accused, whereupon an FIR came to be registered and,
upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against the respondents-accused before the trial Court and the trial
Court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution
acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against
them.
13. While appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, it is
necessary to consider the basic ingredients of Section 405 read with
Section 420 of the IPC as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case
of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, reported in
(2019) 9 SCC 148, wherein it has been observed and held that the
element of criminal breach of trust is required to be proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is also further observed that
fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist to commit a crime in
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
these Sections and these two elements must be there at the time of
commission of the offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also further
observed that mere breach of promise, agreement or contract does
not, ipso facto, constitute offence of criminal breach of trust under
section 405 without there being clear case of entrustment. Mainly the
difference between Criminal breach of trust and cheating would
depend upon fraudulent inducement and mens rea. To support the
charge of criminal breach of trust and cheating existence of
fraudulent or dishonest intention right at the beginning of transaction
with mens rea must be shown. Breach of contractual obligations
which are accompanied by fraudulent, dishonest or deceptive
inducements resulting in involuntary and inefficient transfer stand
criminalised under section 415 of the IPC. In another case of Dr.
Lakshman v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 677,
the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court are relevant for
determining whether the transaction between the complainant and
the respondents-accused falls within the ambit of Sections 405, 406,
and 420 of the IPC, as alleged. In my humble opinion, the trial Court,
while appreciating the evidence adduced by the witnesses, has rightly
taken these aspects into consideration while examining the
ingredients of Sections 405, 406, and 420 of the IPC. Thus, prima
facie, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients
of the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, and 420 of the
IPC, as alleged.
14. So far as the allegation regarding the offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act is concerned, the prosecution has
failed to lead any cogent and reliable evidence to establish that the
respondents intentionally insulted the complainant in a public place
within public view, as alleged in the complaint and in view of the
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shajan Skaria Vs.
State of Kerala reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557, wherein, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of
the Atrocity Act, which is reiterated and clarified in the subsequent
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gunjan @ Girija
Kumari Vs. State (Nct Of Delhi) reported in 2026 (0) INSC 468,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that only when abusive
words are uttered in a public place within public view, with an
intention of insulting a particular person on the basis of his
community, then under that circumstance only it attracts the
ingredients of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and for establishing
the commission of the offence, the prosecution must lead prima facie
satisfactory, cogent, and material evidence to prove its case and,
herein the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the
guilt of the respondents by proving that they intentionally insulted the
complainant in a public place within public view. No evidence worth
the name has been brought on record by the prosecution before the
trial Court to establish that the alleged incident occurred in a public
place. Furthermore, no independent witness has supported the
prosecution case with regard to the alleged offence. In view of the
above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any
error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order
and there is no any illegality or any infirmity found in the judgment
and order.
15. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an Appellate Court
has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate
Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
16. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while
exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which he is charged.
17. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos.
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in
[2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated
the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in
paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble
Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. For the purpose of
considering the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, it is
worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Talari Naresh Vs. State of Telangana, reported in
2026 (0) INSC 486 and in case of Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama
Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2025 (16) JT 81. Hence, I am in
complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
18. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa
and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of
the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a
judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:
“42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of suchPage 12 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
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 emphasize the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential
for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for
discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able
to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It
was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it
would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a
contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is
absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject
their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of
the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this
light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing
with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered
judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the
benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/872/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
undefined
19. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
20. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
21. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is
hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 02:09:15 IST 2026
