Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jerambhai Dhudabhai Prajapati on 30 August, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 560 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JERAMBHAI DHUDABHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN S. MAHETA APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR SATYEN B RAWAL(1630) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 30/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. The State has filed the present appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging the judgment and Page 1 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined order of acquittal dated 09.11.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.41 of 1999, wherein three accused were put to trial under Section 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The FIR as C.R. No.1 of 1997 was registered with Dasada Police Station under Sections 302 and 452 of IPC by Dhudiben Nanjibhai Prajapati in Civil Hospital on 05.01.1997. It had been alleged by her that at 10:00 p.m. in the night hours, the complainant and her son Mahendra were sleeping in the house, the complainant - husband was sleeping in the 'Varanda'. During the night hours the complainant had gone to answer nature's call outside the house. When she came back in the house at that time, her uncle in-law - accused No.1 came in the house and poured kerosene on her and set her ablazed. As as result, complainant received burn injuries. The complainant was shifted to Becharaji Hospital and from there, she Page 2 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined was taken to Mahesana Civil Hospital, where she had given the complaint.
2.1 After the investigation, the police filed 'B' Summary report, however, a private complaint came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class by husband of the deceased and on order under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., after the inquiry, the learned J.M.F.C. issued process and directed to register offence under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and 'B' Summary report came to be rejected.
2.2 On committal, Sessions Case No.41 of 1999 was registered with Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra. The charges were framed below Exh.7 against the accused.
3. Learned APP Mr. Manan S.Maheta submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and facts on record. The learned Judge was required to appreciate the evidence of the Page 3 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined witnesses, who had categorically deposed before the Trial Court about the role played by the accused persons in the incident, and thereby has committed a grave error in not appreciating the evidence in true perspective.
3.1 Mr. Maheta, learned APP, submitted that the learned Trial Court Judge has not properly appreciated the most important aspect that the deceased herself had given FIR before the police, wherein she had specifically stated that accused No.1 had poured kerosene on her and set her ablazed. The learned Judge has failed to consider the aspect that initially husband of the complainant had not given the statement in favour of the prosecution before the Investigating Officer, however, has explained by filing the private complaint that the accused had threatened the husband of the complainant as well as son of the complainant, and father and son both have given depositions against accused, which Page 4 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined clarifies that accused No.1 had poured kerosene on her.
3.2 Learned APP Mr. Maheta submitted that explanation of the witnesses for not initially giving evidence against the accused has to be appreciated on the fact that both were subjected to pressure and threats by the relatives and under such duress were forced to give false statement, and subsequently they could file a private complaint before the competent Court and the facts could be brought to notice while the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered to file the case against the accused.
3.3 Learned APP further submitted that the Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration had supported the examination and the Doctors conducting the postmortem has given the cause of death. Medical Officer has fully supported the prosecution case, who had stated Page 5 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined that at the time of recording her dying declaration, the deceased was at conscious state. Mr. Maheta submitted that the medical papers were placed on evidence at Exh.29. The police, who had initially recorded the complaint was also examined and has supported the prosecution case. 3.4 Learned APP thus, submitted that on overall assessment of the ocular and documentary evidence, the dying declaration together with the evidence of the Executive Magistrate fully supports the prosecution case. The husband and son of the deceased substantially supported the case of the prosecution. Initial 'B' Summary filed by the Investigating Agency was declined by the competent Court and on cognizance being taken on the private complaint, the offence was registered. Learned APP Mr. Maheta submitted that the judgment of acquittal is required to be set aside and the accused are required to be convicted.
Page 6 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined
4. The charge against three of the accused was framed below Exh.7. The accused conspiring with each other on 04.01.1997 at about 10 O' Clock night entered the house of the complainant. At that time, there were two cans in the hands of accused No.1, who had poured kerosene on the body of the complainant's wife and ablazed her lighting the match stick. Thereafter, she was taken to Becharaji Government Hospital and Mahesana Government Hospital, where she was declared dead on 05.01.1997 at about 1:30 hours in the afternoon. The case was registered under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC.
5. The record suggests that initially a 'Janvajog' entry was filed as Station Diary No.4 of 1997 with Mahesana City Police Station. The police filed 'B' Summary report on 20.03.1997, which came to be declined by the Judicial Magistrate. Learned Judge could observe the Page 7 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined previous enmity between the family of the deceased and accused No.1, as uncle in-law of the deceased. The presence of accused No.1 at the scene of offence was found doubtful by 'B' Summary report submitted by the Investigating Agency. The presence of other two accused were also found equally doubtful. The ocular evidence of the Executive Magistrate, who recorded dying declaration was not found trustworthy, as it did not reflect whether the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind. Further the questions put to the deceased while recording the dying declaration were observed to be suggestive in nature. The ocular testimony of the Police Officer, who recorded the initial complaint at the hospital was not found reliable, as no documentary evidence was produced to prove that he was officially on duty at the hospital. 5.1 Learned Judge has not considered the Medical Officer's evidence as strong and reliable Page 8 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined to sustain conviction observing that the history narrated does not clearly establish the offence. 5.2 The evidence of P.W.1 - Mumtajali Merumiya, who as a panch, had stated that the wife of Nanji Bhagat had committed suicide. The place, as noted in the panchnama was the house, where there were burnt clothes, burnt mattresses and even the bed was found to be burnt. In the middle of the room plastic white can and 5 Ltr. open iron Tin was noted, which disclosed the stench of kerosene. The half burnt clothes were seized by the police. The floor was having black spots and the kerosene as well as water was observed.
5.3 P.W.2 - Dahiben Chaturbhai is sister in- law (Devrani) of the deceased. She went to the house on hearing the outcry of the complainant - Nanjibhai. She had seen the deceased lying and stated that after an hour she asked for water, thereafter, they took her to the hospital. In the cross-examination, it has come that in the Osri, Page 9 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined on the bed, complainant Nanjibhai was sleeping, and when P.W.2 and her husband reached there, she saw Nanjibhai dousing the deceased by pouring water on her. She had not heard of complainant Nanjibhai telling her husband that by switching off the light the deceased had tried to commit suicide.
5.4 No evidence is coming on record by deposition of P.W.2 of any allegation against the accused. P.W.2 does not depose that the husband of the deceased i.e. the complainant had informed her or her husband of any act of the accused. 5.5 Complainant P.W.3 - Nanjibhai Motibhai Prajapati in his deposition stated that the incident had taken place at 10 O' clock at night and he woke up when his wife started shouting. He took his wife to the hospital with assistance of the neighbours. The witness-complainant stated that the Doctor at Mahesana had asked his wife, as to how she got burnt and there the wife had Page 10 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined informed the Doctor that Jeram Dhuda had poured kerosene from two cans and had gone away, burning her. She had informed the Doctor that Jeram Dhuda
- accused No.1 was her uncle, who was lowering her dignity. Complainant-P.W.3 stated that the said history was informed by his wife to the Doctor. He referred to the pressure from his another brothers, where he was influenced to state that the deceased had committed suicide because of her mental illness and therefore, initially he had given a false statement. P.W.3 stated that if he fails to adhere to their instructions, he was threatened to be harassed in his community and therefore, under such duress he had given a false complaint. In his deposition as well as in the cross-examination, it had come on record that the son of the complainant was in the house.
5.6 From the deposition, it could be noticed that the complainant could only know about the Page 11 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined incident after he could smell burning from the house and he woke up only after hearing the shouts. The deposition also notes that after hearing the outcry, Chatur Soma, Bhailalbhai Chaturbhai, Maganbhai Motibhai, Ramilaben Dalsukhbhai, Dalsukhbhai Maganbhai and Dahiben Chaturbhai had come there. He had heard the sound of latch of the door being opened and when he enquired, his wife told him that she was going out to answer the nature's call. Thereafter, his wife also informed her that she had woken up to switch off the light and after switching the light, she had gone into the room of Mahendra.
6. The deposition does not inspire confidence since initially the complainant, as a husband of the deceased has not supported the case of the prosecution, 'B' Summary was filed. The evidence suggests that immediately the injured victim had not informed, even P.W.2 or her husband or all the others who had come there immediately, of how Page 12 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined the incident had taken place. The complainant himself was sleeping in the 'Varanda'. He had heard and even seen his wife going out to urinate or defecate, again she had woken up to switch off the light. It cannot be believed in the fact that when the complainant himself was sleeping in the 'Varanda', some other person named as accused could enter the house, and observing the sequence of the incident it cannot be said that the complainant was fast asleep to not even know of any third person entering his house at about 10 O' clock at night.
6.1 The complainant husband refers to the statement given by the wife to the Doctor alleging the accused No.1 had poured the kerosene on her body and set her ablazed. Immediately on burning on high flame, she would have struggled and cried, and the presence of third person in the house would have immediately be known, but that has not happened. It cannot be believed that Page 13 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined in presence of the husband as well as son, accused would have entered the house and burnt the deceased. The conduct of father and son P.W.4
- Mahendra Nanjibhai Prajapati would become doubtful. Even son P.W.4 could not explain as to what they were doing when deceased was set to fire.
6.2 According to P.W.4, the father was sleeping in the 'Osri' and mother had gone out for 10 to 15 minutes to answer the natures call. P.W.4 deposed that he had seen accused No.1 - Jerambhai Dhudabhai when he had come in the house and according to P.W.4, accused No.1 was loitering there. He came to know only when his mother started burning and his father had poured water to douse the fire. P.W.4 also stated that his mother was taken to the hospital by father and the relatives. Next day in the morning, he had gone to the hospital and his mother had informed him that accused No.1 had poured kerosene to burn Page 14 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined her. The suggestion of the mother being of unstable mind and thereby committing suicide has been declined by the son.
6.3 In the cross-examination, the son admits that when he woke up, he had not seen accused No.1 outside his house, nor his father had seen him. He denied of stating before the police that two months earlier his uncle Keshabhai and accused No.1 had gone to Ahmedabad for engagement of his brother, but there was no success, therefore, the mother was suspicious of accused No.1 and on that ground she had given his name. He also stated that initially he had not given statement against accused under the pressure of his elder uncle and the community people. 6.4 The conduct of the son also becomes doubtful. Though, he was in the house he had not taken any step to save his mother and the fact that deceased had not informed the husband and son about alleged act of accused No.1, where the Page 15 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined circumstances shows that even most of the neighbours had come there, becomes an unbelievable fact.
7. The Executive Magistrate - Bhavansinh Ramsinh Rathod was examined as P.W.5. The dying declaration was at Exh.22. As observed by the learned Trial Court, the question put by the Magistrate was very suggestive in nature, where he had not asked about how the incident had taken place or how she got burnt, rather the question was that why Kerosene was poured on her, and on that, it was stated by the Executive Magistrate that deceased had informed that there were quarrels in the house and those quarrels were by accused No.1 - Jerambhai Dhudabhai and he was trying to lower her down in the village. Another suggestive question, which was put by the Executive Magistrate was, who all were present there when the Kerosene was poured on her. It appears that the answers have been noted to Page 16 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined exonerate the other family members. The deceased stated that the husband was sleeping in the 'Osri' and she was sleeping in the house, and when she woke up for answering the nature's call, she was pulled back in the house and the kerosene was poured upon her. The son Mahendra was sleeping inside the house where it becomes impossible to believe that the son and father, who were in the house had not heard of accused No.1 entering the house who was alleged of pulling the deceased in the house. When she started shouting after putting off the fire, she was taken to the hospital. Father and son had not seen accused No.1 even running away.
8. The learned Trial Court Judge observation is obvious since the circumstances shows that dying declaration does not inspire confidence. In the case of Atbir Vs. Government of NCT Of Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 1, the principles governing the credibility of D.D. has been noted wherein it has Page 17 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined been held as under:
"The following principles can be culled out from earlier decisions of the Supreme Court:
(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the Court.
(ii) The Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.
(iii) Where the Court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration.
(iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.
(v) Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the Page 18 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined occurrence, it is not to be rejected.
(viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded.
(ix) When the eye-witness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.
(x) If after careful scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration."
9. The dying declaration does not appear to be true and voluntary. Deceased died on the next day. The husband was along with the deceased. Doctor Dhirajkumar Jivanlal Soni was examined as P.W.6, whose testimony shows that during the course of treatment on 05.01.1997, the deceased died. The inquest panchnama was drawn and the cause of death was shock due to intensive burns.
10. P.W.7 - Doctor Nimesh Ramanlal Shah stated that he had recorded the history of deceased, Page 19 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined where she was brought at 1:30 at night hours of 05.01.1997 under the transfer communication of C.H.C. Becharaji. Doctor stated that she was completely conscious and in the history before the Doctor she had stated that at night about 10 O' clock, her uncle Jerambhai Dhudabhai poured kerosene on her and by lighting the match stick had burned her. The Doctor in his deposition stated that he may have treated the patient for about half an hour. The Executive Magistrate came at about 3:15 with Yadi, and Doctor stated that, as there was no need of his presence in the surgical ward therefore, none had come to call him. He referred to the signature on the dying declaration (Exh.21), to state that after signing the document Exh.21, he had gone along with the Magistrate. The contrary evidence on record of the Doctor, itself does not bring reliability on the dying declaration. The Doctor also affirmed that he had not given any separate certificate Page 20 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined regarding consciousness of the patient. The note by the C.M.O. confirms that the patient was with husband as well as with the nephew. The Doctor affirmed that he had not put any signature or endorsement beneath the dying declaration, noting the time of conclusion. The Doctor also does not remember of the presence of any relatives beside the patient, when he had put the endorsement on Exh.22.
11. The evidence cumulatively, if read together does not bring the true facts on record, though the husband was sleeping in the 'Osri' and was awoken when the deceased wife had gone out to release herself. He was even awoken when she had put off the light. After hearing the shouts of the wife, he entered the room and had tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water. In spite of the fact, he had not deposed of seeing accused No.1 or rest of the two accused in the house. Nothing has come on record as to how accused Page 21 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined Nos.2 and 3 were connected. The Executive Magistrate could not state that none were present while the dying declaration was recorded, nor the Doctor who had put the endorsement on the dying declaration could affirm such fact that there was no tutoring or prompting from the side of other family members.
12. Further, the presence of accused in the house of complainant could not be proved. The facts also become doubtful. It appears that the statement naming accused No.1 would be out of such perception of the deceased believing him to be responsible for the family issues. Apart from that, nothing could have been brought on record of any reason for accused No.1 as uncle in-law to set the deceased on fire. The immediate conduct of the complainant father as well as son also creates doubts. The deceased was admitted at 1:30 at night on 05.01.1997 and dead body was received at 3:45 on 05.01.1997. The degree of burn was 95 Page 22 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined to 98% and the period of her hospitalization does not make the deposition of Doctor, who had placed endorsement on the dying declaration as reliable as well as deposition of the Executive Magistrate by placing suggestive questions to the deceased and expecting answers accordingly, does not inspire confidence to rely on the dying declaration of the deceased. How all three accused had conspired to kill deceased, has not been proved and in view of the fact that 'B' Summary was filed by the Investigating Officer and endorsing Doctor was not present, while dying declaration was recorded, and when he had not given any separate certificate regarding consciousness of deceased as well as fit state of mind to depose, the dying declaration cannot be relied upon for conviction.
13. Learned Trial Court Judge has observed that the husband of the deceased has not given any complaint against the accused of any threat to Page 23 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined him for retracting his statement. The statement before the police on 05.01.1997 was referred to the witness and he stated of no family dispute or ill-will with accused No.1, and had stated that his wife has falsely named the accused. The learned Trial Court Judge has doubted the conduct of the husband as well son. The son deposition of his mother informing him that accused No.1 had poured kerosene on her and on next day he came to know when he visited his mother at Mahesana Government Hospital also becomes doubtful. Such statement was not given by him before the Court at Bajana, nor had he given any statement that accused No.1 and his wife had threatened him and his brother to show them the consequences, has brought contradiction on record in context to retraction of their statements.
14. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Page 24 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined "8. 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.
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 Code of Criminal Procedure, Page 25 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 26 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
44. In our view, if in the light of above circumstances, the trial court felt that the accused could get benefit of doubt, the said view cannot be held to be illegal, improper or contrary to law. Hence, even though we are of the opinion that in an appeal against acquittal, powers of the appellate court are as wide as that of the trial court and it can review, reappreciate and reconsider the entire evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own conclusion on fact as well as on law, in the present case, the view taken by the trial court for acquitting the accused was possible and plausible. On the basis of evidence, therefore, at the most, it can be said that the other view was equally possible. But it is well established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court. In this case, a possible view on the evidence of prosecution had been taken by the trial court which ought not to have been disturbed by the appellate court. The decision of the appellate court (the High Court), therefore, is liable to be set aside.
Page 27 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined
15. In the case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment [State of Karnataka v.
H.K. Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591] rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC can be summarised as follows:
8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to Page 28 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
16. In view of the observations made hereinabove and principle laid down in the above referred judgment, we find that observations of the learned Trial Court Judge consistent and the appreciation of the evidence does not require any interference of this Court. There is no perversity or illegality in the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court Judge. The Page 29 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/560/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined present appeal fail merits hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of acquittal is hereby upheld. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) (UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) Pankaj/8 Page 30 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:17:42 IST 2025