Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dashrathbhai Nadaji Bhil on 6 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 947 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd/-
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
===============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
===============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DASHRATHBHAI NADAJI BHIL
===============================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NON BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 06/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order dated 30.01.2009 in Sessions Case No.57 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.27, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent - accused from the offences punishable Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined under Sections 498-A, 294(b), 323 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. That the marriage of deceased Jashiben Dashrathbhai Bhil and the accused Dashrathbhai Nadaji Bhi was solemnized 15 years ago and out of their wedlock, they had two children.
The incident occurred on 24.10.2006 at around 10:00pm, when Jashiben had returned to her matrimonial home from her parental home and at that time, for no reasons, the accused abused her and physical assaulted her. That Jashiben and her children shouted, and thereafter, she took the kerosene jar, which was lying in the house, and poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. As her both the children and her husband started shouting, the neighbours came and took her to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for medical treatment where she was admitted in Ward No.G-1. That she Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined sustained burn injuries on her body and on both the hands. Jashiben Dashrathbhai Bhil filed a complaint from the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, which was registered at Shahibaug Police Station being C.R.No.I-410 of 2006 under Section 498(A), 294(b), 323 of the IPC and her dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and during treatment, she succumbed to the burn injuries and her body was sent for post-mortem. The Investigating Officer has submitted a report to add section 306 of the IPC in the FIR, recorded that statements of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnamas and as there was sufficient evidence against the accused, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), an order under Section 209 of the Code was passed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) and registered as Sessions Case No. 57 of 2007.
2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons and the Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined 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 and a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.1 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.2, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.3. The prosecution has produced the following evidences in support of the case.
:: Oral Evidence ::
Sr.No. PW Name Exh. 1 PW-1 Dr. Alpeshbhai Gordhanbhai Gangani 4 2 PW-2 Maheshbhai Mohanbhai Bhil 9 3 PW-3 Rajeshbhai Ishwarbhai Parmar 12 4 PW-4 Leelaben Vinodbhai Bhil 14 5 PW-5 Meenaben Vasantbhai Bhil 15 6 PW-6 Gautambhai Shankarbhai Bhil 16 7 PW-7 Lakshambhai Keshavlal Parghi 20 8 PW-8 Vasantbhai Vinodbhai Bhil 23 9 PW-9 Naynaben Kanaiyalal Bhatt 24 Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined :: Documentary Evidence :: Sr.No. Particulars Exh. 1 Post-mortem Report 5 2 Death Certicate 6 3 Panchnama of place of incident 10 4 Inquest panchnama 16 5 Report regarding offence u/s.157 of Cr.P.C. 18 6 Report regarding addition of S.306 of the IPC 19 7 Yadi to the Executive Magistrate 21 8 Dying Declaration 22
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at 30, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution, the accused refused to step into the witness box or examine the witnesses on his behalf and after hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294(b), 323 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and produced 8 documentary evidences on record in support the case, but the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the same in proper perspective. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the legal provisions and has committed grave error, which has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. Even though, the witnesses have turned hostile, the learned Trial Court ought to have exercised the powers vested under the provisions of law to find out the truth to do proper justice and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Though the act of deceased has taken place at the residence of the accused, which has led to death the deceased, the accused has not explained under what circumstances and for what reasons, the deceased had committed such act. Even though, the witnesses, who have been examined, are reliable, the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in discarding the Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined evidences, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant -
State. Though served, the respondent - accused has not appeared either in-person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
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 in the case of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 on 12.02.2024, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in Para Nos. 24 to 26, as under:
"24. We may firstly discuss the position of law regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal appeal. For, that is the foundation of this challenge. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal.
25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re- appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity.
26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The 'two-views theory' has been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka3,
"13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and on appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N. [(2002) 9 SCC 639] has laid down that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been dealt with by this Court, thus:
"9. ...We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The view taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable view and even if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of acquittal."" (emphasis supplied) Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., the Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed the relevant decisions and summarized the approach of the appellate Court while deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus:
"7. It is well settled that:
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka5, Anwar Ali v. State of H.P.) 7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P.) 7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala)."
7. In Para - 36, the Apex Court, in the case of Mallappa (Supra), has observed as under:
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
9. To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr.Alpeshbhai Gordhanbhai Gangani at Exh.4 and this witness is the Medical Officer, who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. The post-mortem note has been produced at Exh.5 and as per the post-mortem note, the deceased had sustained 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined neck, chest, abdomen and back and had sustained 60% burn injuries, which were ante-mortem in nature. As per post- mortem note, the cause of death was septicemia over the body. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the injuries shown in column No.17 may be sustained accidentally also.
9.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Maheshbhai Mohanbhai Bhil at Exh.9 and this witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh.10 but, the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 9.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Rajeshbhai Ishwarbhai Parmar at Exh.12 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh.10 and the witness has stated that in his presence, the match box and kerosene jar were seized.
9.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Lilaben Vinodbhai Bhil at Exh.14 and the witness is the mother of deceased Jashiben Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined and has stated that her daughter had a fight with her husband but, she does not know whether the accused had physically assaulted her daughter. As she was called, she had gone to the Civil Hospital, where she had seen her daughter with bandages but, her daughter could not speak. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that she had no personal knowledge about the incident and during the 15 year's marriage span of her daughter and the accused, here daughter had never complained about any physical assault by the accused.
9.4. The prosecution has examined PW-5 Meenaben Vasantbhai Bhil at Exh.15 and PW-6 Gautambhai Shankarbhai Bhil at Exh.17 and the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the Inquest Panchnama, which is produced at Exh.16. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and during the cross- examination, nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined 9.5. The prosecution has examined PW-7 Laxmanbhai Keshavlal Parghi at Exh.20 and this witness was working as the Executive Magistrate in the Metropolitan Executive Court, Ahmedabad. The witness has stated that Jayesh Patel, the Executive Magistrate, who has recorded the dying declaration of deceased Jashiben Dashrathbhai Bhil on 25.10.2006, had expired and as he had the charge of the post, he has produced the yadi at Exh.21 and the dying declaration at Exh.22. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the dying declaration and the endorsement made on the dying declaration has not been made in his presence. 9.6. The prosecution has examined PW-8 Vasantbhai Vinodbhai Bhil at Exh.23 and the witness is the brother of deceased Jashiben and he had stated that he does not know whether any quarrel had taken place between his sister and brother- in-law. He has stated that as his nephew had called him, he had gone to the hospital along with his nephew where he had seen his sister with bandages and she could not speak. Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined During the cross-examination, he has stated that during her married life of 15 years, his sister had never complained about her husband regarding any physical assault. 9.7. The prosecution has examined PW-9 Naynaben Kanaiyalal Bhatt at Exh.24 and the witness is the neighbour of the deceased but, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that there was a good relationship between the deceased Jashiben and her husband - accused herein and she had never seen that the accused had physically assaulted deceased Jashiben at any time.
9.8. The prosecution has examined PW-10 Ranveersinh Dalpatsinh Solanki at Exh.26 and this witness was working as Police Constable with M.A.Rathod, Police Sub Inspector in Shahibaug Police Station. This witness has stated that as M.A.Rathod, Police Sub Inspector has expired, he has come to give deposition. The witness has stated that deceased Jashiben had filed a complaint in the presence of M.A.Rathod, Police Sub Inspector, which is produced at Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined Exh.27, and he has identified the signature of M.A.Rathod, Police Sub Inspector on the complaint.
9.9. The prosecution has examined PW-11 Atmaram Jethabhai Chavda at Exh.29 and the witness has stated that he was a member of the Investigating Squad in Shahibaug Police Station, and on 03.11.2006, he had gone to the Civil Hospital where the dead body of deceased Jashiben was lying and he had prepared an Inquest Panchnama in the presence of the panch witnesses, which is produced at Exh.16. The witness has stated that as a kerosene lamp had fallen on the head of deceased Jashiben, she received burn injuries and had succumbed to the burn injuries.
10. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it appears that the prosecution has proved that deceased Jashiben Dashrathbhai Bhil died due to burn injuries and she had sustained 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her neck, chest, abdomen and back and had sustained 60% burn injuries and had expired during treatment. The charge against the accused is framed under Section 498(A), 294(b), Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined 223 and 306 and the prosecution has examined PW-4 Lilaben Vinodbhai Bhil at Exh.14, the mother of deceased Jashiben and PW-8 Vasantbhai Vinodbhai Bhil at Exh.23, the brother of deceased Jashiben but, both of them have not stated about any ill-treatment to deceased Jashiben by the accused during their marriage span of 15 years and as per the case of the prosecution, deceased Jashiben has filed the complaint but, M.A.Rathod, Police Sub Inspector, who had recorded the complaint, has expired and the contents of the complaint have not been proved. Moreover, Jayesh Patel, the Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration of deceased Jashiben on 25.10.2006, which is produced at Exh.22, has expired and the contents of the dying declaration have not been proved. On the dying declaration, there is an endorsement "patient was conscience, able to speak" but there is no iota of evidence as who was the Medical Officer, who had made such endorsement on the dying declaration. As per the case of the prosecution both the children of the accused and the deceased are eye-witnesses but, they have not been examined by the prosecution. The learned Trial Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined Court has considered that PW-11 Atmaram Jethabhai Chavda, Police Sub Inspector, who has prepared the Inquest Panchnama, has stated that deceased Jashiben has expired as a kerosene lamp had fallen on her head and she had sustained burn injuries. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence produced by the prosecution in proper perspective and has passed the impugned judgment and the order acquittal.
11. On minute re-appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution and the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the learned Trial Court has thoroughly appreciated all the evidence on record and has given due consideration to all the material pieces of evidence. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the oral as well as documentary evidences and if the evidence produced by the prosecution is examined in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mallappa (supra), it appears that the learned Trial Court has arrived at findings which are legal and proper and there are no errors of law or facts. Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined Moreover, the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused is fairly possible and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
12. In view of the settled position of law in the decision of Mallappa (Supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and 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 Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/947/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
13. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2009 in Sessions Case No.57 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.27, Ahmedabad, is hereby confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) *F.S.KAZI.....
Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:03:01 IST 2025