Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shaileshkumar @ Kalu Dhabalji Thakor on 22 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2612 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAILESHKUMAR @ KALU DHABALJI THAKOR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MRS REKHA H KAPADIA(2246) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 22/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 126/2008 on 31.03.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of IPC and Section 31 of Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The accused no. 1 was married to deceased Monikaben and they had two children out of the wedlock, daughter Daksha aged three years five months and daughter Divya aged one and half years. The accused nos. 2 and 3 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of deceased Monikaben. The accused no. 1 and the deceased Monikaben were married as per the rites of their community and sometime after the marriage, the accused no. 1 would not give enough money for household expenses to deceased -
Monikaben and would mentally and physically harass her. The accused nos. 2 and 3 would also take the side of the accused no. 1 and would mentally and physically harass Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined deceased Monikaben and the harassment was to such an extent that she got fed up of the harassment and on 17.03.2007 at about 14.45 hours, she sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. She was immediately rushed to the Shardaben Hospital for treatment where she filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 27 before the Gomtipur Police Station which was registered at Gomtipur Police Station I - C.R. No. 58 of 2007 under Sections 498(A) and 114 of the IPC and Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Monikaben - wife of Shaileshkumar Dhawalji Thakur expired during treatment and Section 306 was added in the FIR.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City as per the provisions of Section 209 of Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 126/2008.
2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 2 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 3, 4 and 5 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh.
1 1 Kokilaben Prahladbhai Thakor 10
2 2 Savitaben Dalabhai Parmar 11
3 3 Haribhai Gordhanbhai Solanki 13
4 4 Kanuji Shakraji Thakor 16
5 5 Sarojben Kanuji Thakor 17
6 6 Jagdishwarkumar Sing 18
7 7 Dr. Mustakahmead Gulamrasool 20
Shaikh
Page 4 of 23
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
8 8 Laxmanbhai Keshavlal Parghi 22
9 9 Jivaji Kavaji Ninama 26
10 10 Vikramsinh Ghaghubha Jadeja 29
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
1 Complaint 27
2 Report 28
3 Panchnama of place of offence 14
4 Inquest Panchnama 12
5 Report to add Section 306 30
6 Yadi 23
7 Dying Declaration 24
8 Yadi and Report 36
9 Treatment Certificate 19
10 Postmortem Note 21
11 FSL Nondh 31
12 Receipt of FSL received 32
13 Letter of FSL 33
14 FSL Report 34
2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and learned advocate Mrs. Rekha Kapadia the respondents. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this Court stated:
"While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court".
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined 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 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 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.
Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Kokilaben Prahladbhai Thakor at Exh. 10. The witness is the mother of deceased Monikaben who has stated that her daughter Monikaben was residing in her matrimonial home with the accused and she would visit her paternal home often. That the accused Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined used to keep her well and whenever she would come home she would not speak anything about her matrimonial home That she does not know how her daughter expired but she got news that her daughter was burnt and she had gone to the hospital but her daughter Monika did not tell her anything. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has and during the lengthy cross examination by the learned APP has denied that she had ever filed a complaint and she has denied that her daughter was ill-treated and harassed by the accused. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that her daughter was married for more than seven years and during the entire time she had never filed any complaint or complained about any mental and physical harassment by the accused. The neighbors also did not complain about any harassment to her daughter whenever she visited her daughter at her matrimonial home and when she went to the hospital her daughter was unconscious and could not speak anything. That prior to this complaint her daughter Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined had never filed any complaint in any Police Station against the accused.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Savitaben Dalabhai Parmar Exh. 11 and the witness is the panch witness of the inquest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 12. The witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Haribhai Gordhanbhai Solanki Exh. 13 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 14. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that in the year 2007 on 17.03.2007, he was called to the Police Station and asked to affix his signature on some panchnama and he had done so as per the say of the police. The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Kanuji Shakraji Thakor at Exh. 16 and the witness is the paternal uncle of Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined deceased Monikaben. The witness has stated that his niece Monika was married about seven years prior to the incident as per the rites of the community and she was residing with the accused with her two children. The accused kept her very well and she would come often to his home but he does not know how she has expired. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the house of deceased Monika and his house is adjacent to each other and during her matrimonial life Monika used to come to her paternal home and to his house also. During this entire time she has never complained about any mental or physical harassment by the accused and besides the complaint she has never filed any complaint or application against the accused for any mental or physical harassment. That he would go often to Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined the matrimonial home of Monika and she was kept very well at her matrimonial home.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Sarojben Kanuji Thakor at Exh. 17 and the witness is the aunt of deceased Monikaben and she has not supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that her niece Monika was kept very well at her matrimonial home and she does not know how Monika has expired. The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined by the learned APP and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that during the seven years of matrimonial life of Monika, she had never complained against the accused. 8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 -
Jagdishwarkumar Sinh at Exh. 18 and the witness was the Medical Officer at Shardaben Hospital on 17.03.2007. The witness has stated that at around 03.40 pm, Monikaben was brought for treatment and she had sustained 97% burn injuries on her body, her clothes were burnt and smelling of kerosene and her general condition was very Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined poor. She had sustained 7% burn injuries on her face, 7% burn injuries on the back portion of her body, 13% burn injuries on the front portion of her body, 18% on both the hands and 18% on both the legs. She had sustained 1% burns on the genital area and in all had sustained 97% burn injuries. She had given the history wherein she has stated that she had sustained suicidal flame burns by kerosene oil at her home in a closed room at 02.00 pm on 17.03.2007. The witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh. 19. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that if the patient himself or herself gives the history, the same is noted in the medical certificate. When the patient was brought painkillers were given to her and her throat was burnt and the outside portion of the neck was completely burnt. She had sustained 3% burn injuries on the soles of the foot and 97% on the whole body. That in a case where a person has sustained burn injuries, the depth of the burn injuries can be made out only after 48 hours. Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined 8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Dr. Mustakahmead Gulamrasool Shaikh at Exh. 20 and the witness was working as the Medical Officer at Civil Hospital Ahmedabad at the post-mortem room when the dead body of deceased Monikaben Shaileshkumar Thakur was brought for post-mortem. The witness has stated that he and panel doctor Dr. M. J. Dave had conducted the post- mortem on the dead body of Monikaben on 18.03.2007 between 01.00 pm and 02.00 pm. The post-mortem note is produced at Exh. 21 and as per column no. 17, there were second to third degree burns over the face forehead, anterior and posterior part of neck, anterior and posterior part of chest, both upper limbs with anterior and posterior abdominal wall, labor majora, both buttocks and both lower limbs with planter of feet. The skin was puffed at places of burns and redness was seen at the places of burns, the eyebrows, eyelashes and pubic hair was burnt and singed. As per their opinion, the cause of death was shock due to burns over the body. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined that because of the 97% burns, the skin all over the body was hanging and the both the hands and both the legs were completely covered by bandages.
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Laxmanbhai Keshavlal Parghi at Exh. 22 and the witness was working as the Executive Magistrate, Ahmedabad City on 17.03.2007 when he had received a Yadi to record the dying declaration of Monikaben Shaileshkumar from Gomtipur Police Station at 07.20 hours. The witness has stated that he had gone to Shardaben Hospital, Female Surgical Ward and on inquiring from the doctor, he was informed that Monikaben was admitted in the Female Surgical Ward and he had gone to the ward and recorded the dying declaration of Monikaben. That she had stated that her husband was harassing her and was not giving her money for food in the house and the father-in-law and mother-in-law were harassing her and she was fed up and she herself had sprinkled kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. That she had worn a terry cotton sari and blouse and she was married for more than six years. The dying declaration is Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined produced at Exh. 24. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that when he reached the hospital the police were present and he met the police. When he had started to record the dying declaration, he had not taken the endorsement of the doctor that the patient was conscious. That he had taken the endorsement of the doctor after he had recorded the dying declaration and in column no. 8 of the dying declaration, the column is blank and there are no details as to whether the deceased had any fight with any person. That the deceased did not state that she had a fight with anyone till he had asked question no. 15. 8.8 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Jivaji Kavaji Ninama at Exh. 26 and the witness was working as the PSI in Gomtipur Police Station on 17.03.2007 when he had received intimation from Shardaben Hospital and he had gone to record the complaint of Monikaben which is produced at Exh. 27. That he had sent the complainant for registration to the PSO. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined that when he went to the hospital his writer was with him and the treatment of the Monikaben was going on and she had bandages all over her body. She had sustained burn injuries and he did not take the doctor's endorsement that the patient was conscious on the complaint. That he does not know what was stated before the hospital and both the hands of the deceased were covered with bandages. He did not record the complaint in the presence of any witnesses and while he was recording the complaint of the complainant, his superior officers had come to the hospital. 8.9 The prosecution has examined PW10 - Vikramsinh Ghaghubha Jadeja at Exh. 29 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the entire procedure in detail that was undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he had received the matter for investigation at 07.30 pm but he did not record the further statement of the complainant. That he had recorded the statement of Poonamchand Kalidas Parmar - the neighbor of the deceased and had also recorded the Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined statements of Rakeshbhai Ramanbhai Gohil and Praveenbhai Atmaram Parmar and both the witnesses had stated that the deceased did not have any harassment from the accused. The witnesses had gone to the hospital along with the deceased and at the place of incident, a half burnt quilt was found.
9. On reappreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, there is no iota of evidence that the deceased was ever harassed during the seven years of her matrimonial life by the accused. PW1 - Kokilaben Prahladbhai Thakur - the mother of the deceased, PW4 - Kanuji Shakaraji Thakur - the uncle of the deceased and PW5 - Sarojben Kanuji Thakur who were the nearest relatives of the deceased have not stated that the deceased was harassed by the accused in any manner. In fact, they have stated that she was residing very happily in her matrimonial home and during the entire period of seven years of her matrimonial life she had never complained about any ill treatment by the accused. The complaint produced at Exh. 27 and the dying declaration produced at Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Exh. 24 have been recorded by PW9 - Jeevaji Kawaji Ninama and PW8 - Laxmanbhai Keshavlal Pargi respectively but there are a number of contradictions in both the complaint and the dying declaration and the endorsement of the Medical Officer that the patient was fit and conscious to record her statement is not given by the Medical Officer. In fact, the Executive Magistrate has stated that Monikaben was not checked by the Medical Officer before he had recorded the statement and in the evidence it has emerged that both the hands of Monikaben were burnt and had bandages all over the hands but still the dying declaration and the complaint show that the thumb impression of Monikaben was taken but the same has not been identified by any independent persons. There is no evidence regarding the ill treatment and the complaint has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the learned Trial Court has discussed all the evidence in detail.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra), the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 126/2008 on 31.03.2009, is hereby confirmed.
Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2612/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:41 IST 2025