State Of Gujarat vs Balvantsinh @ Munno Jaswantsinh Gohel

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Balvantsinh @ Munno Jaswantsinh Gohel on 16 May, 2025

Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/1118/1998                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1118 of 1998


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                       and
                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                      Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                      Versus
                                  BALVANTSINH @ MUNNO JASWANTSINH GOHEL & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR JK PARMAR(587) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
                               and
                               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                                                            Date : 16/05/2025

                                                  ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Learned APP has placed on record report of Mahuda Police Station dated 15.05.2025 along with death certificate of accused no.1 - Balvantsinh @ Munno Jaswantsinh Gohel, accused no.2 - Jaswantsinh Nagjibhai Gohel. It is also stated in the reported that accused no.3 - Sajjanben w/o. Jawantishinh Nagjibhai has expired and statement of Savitaben, wherein, it is stated that accused no.3 - Sajjanben has expired. Report of Mahuda Police Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined Station along with death certificate of accused no.1 and 2 and statement of Savitaben is taken on record. In view of that, the present Criminal Appeal qua respondent no.1,2 and 3 (accused nos.1,2 and 3) stands abated.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.10.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.347 of 1995, whereby the respondents accused came to be acquitted for the offences under sections 498(A), 306, 302, 201 and section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State has preferred present appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short).

3. Brief facts of the case are that the present complaint was lodged by the complainant Ganpatsinh Vajeshinh Rathod at Mahudha Police Station on 12.06.1995. As per complaint, the complainant's daughter Manjulaben was married to the accused Balvantsinh Gohil about one year prior through customary rites. Manjulaben was residing at her matrimonial home. While residing there, the complainant's daughter used to inform him that her husband and her sister-in-law Savitaben had illicit relations. When she objected to such illicit relations, her husband, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law used to severely beat her and subjected her to physical as well as mental harassment. Furthermore, the complainant has stated in the complaint that in order to ensure his daughter's marital life proceeded peacefully, he used to convince and peruse her and send her back to her matrimonial home. The complainant's daughter Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined Manjulaben was given a gold chain by him, which the accused Balvantsinh sold off, and when Manjulaben objected, he brutally assaulted her. As the marriage was within their own community, on 18.05.1995, when Manjulaben came to the complainant's house, she narrated the aforesaid facts. Despite this, the complainant once again convince Manjulaben and sent her back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 11.06.1995, deceased committed suicide. Hence, complaint was lodged.

4. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant with the Mahuda Police Station for the offence under sections 498(A), 302, 306, 34, 201 of IPC, the investigating agency while carrying out investigation recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn panchnama of scene of offence, discovery and recovery of weapons and obtained FSL report for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC concerned. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Nadiad as provided under section 209 of the Code.

5. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Nadiad, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.2 for the offence under sections 498(A), 302, 306, 34, 201 of IPC against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offences. The respondent accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses and also produced various documentary Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined evidence before the learned Competent Court. The details of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution is reproduced in the tabular form as under :-

~:: Oral Evidence ::~ Sr. no. Particular Exh.

~:: Documentary Evidence ::~ Sr. no. Particular Exh.

7. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that they are innocent and false case has been filed against them.

8. We have heard learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak for the appellant - State and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Sessions Court. Learned Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined APP has submitted that learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that these witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and they have narrated role of each of the accused persons. She has further submitted that learned Trial Judge has committed error in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of these witnesses and therefore, impugned judgment and order of acquittal may be quashed and set aside.

9. In view of aforesaid, scope and ambit of section 378 of Cr.P.C. pertaining to appeal against order of acquittal requires to have glance and accordingly, this Court while exercising power under section 378 of Cr.P.C. against judgment of acquittal has to consider the provisions in its true spirit and also cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence is that once there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused unless proved guilty, it continues at all stage of trial and finally culminates into fact when case ends in acquittal. Thus, presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal.

10. Even the Court while re-appreciating the entire evidence at appellate stage is not permissible to take different view, unless and until grave error has been identified in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Competent Court. As such there are plethora of decisions on the issue of power to exercise, as enshrined under section 378 of Cr.P.C., while deciding the appeal from acquittal, which otherwise can be summarized as under :-

(I) Appreciation of evidence is core element of criminal Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral as well as documentary evidence because partial or selective appreciation of evidence result in miscarriage of justice, which otherwise give rise and ground to challenge, more so when Court concerned after appreciation of evidence finds that when two views are possible, one in favour of the accused not only be followed but may prevail, as mere possibility of contrary view would not justify reversal of acquittal.

11. Keeping in mind aforesaid principles, let examine arguments of learned APP to see whether the appellant - State has made out case to quash the impugned judgment.

12. Having heard learned APP and perusing entire record and proceeding comprising of documentary and oral evidence culminated in reasoning arrived by learned Competent Court, it transpires that there is vast contradiction amongst prosecution witnesses as to the way in which alleged incident is said to have taken place. Prosecution seems to have come with two different contrary theory, where as per statement, allegation and evidence efforts seems to have been made to establish that deceased was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and therefore, she was compelled to take extreme step to end her life. However, no substance in the form of evidence in support thereof seems to have surfaced.

12.1. Simultaneously other theory led by the prosecution is deceased was done to death by the accused, though in support thereof, no evidence either in the form of direct or to say substantial evidence exits.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined 12.2. Simply by raising theory impleading accused without there being any evidence cannot be accepted as gospel truth, as complaint in question seems to have been filed after completion of last rituals of deceased and that too at the instance of PW - 3 who seems, to be possessing dominant position in the family and also appears to have root with the police department and leading social worker in the society. While referring to deposition of said witness, who claims to have seen dead body of the deceased and found reddish which is not black on the neck of the deceased, whereas, contrary to the said deposition, prosecution witness no.2 who is mother of the deceased claims to have found contusion on the neck of the deceased.

13. While referring the deposition of prosecution witness no.3, where from it transpires that no complaint as to the claim of previous incident either being alleged nor scrutiny as to the truth of the said incident having been carried, as deceased appears to have attended marriage ceremony, where she met PW

-3 and relatives as usually and happily without raising any grievance or complaint against her in laws. Other count of statement and allegations / case of the prosecution are raised on the issue of accused no.1 (since deceased) had illicit relationship with accused no.3 (sister in law - since deceased) citing incident of both of them having proceeded for shopping and also on several occasion accused no.3 used to take care of accused no.1 which created doubt in the mind of deceased and pursuing her husband - accused no.1 to discontinue such illicit relationship and refusal thereof, resulted in questioned crime.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined

14. Another aspect which requires to be dealt with is question as to complaint having been lodged at belated stage also seems to have been not explained by the prosecution and not only that prosecution witnesses who have also attended funeral ceremony of deceased have not spoken single word / gossip as to take extreme step so to initiate complaint.

15. At this stage, we deem it proper to reproduce para 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under (it is in vernacular language, for better understanding it is translated in English) :-

"(8) In these circumstances, the prosecution has examined 3 main witnesses. Their evidence is completely contradictory with the fact of the prosecution case. Even if we believe the deposition of all three witnesses, which accused behaved which type with Manjulaben at which place at what time with what behavior, so that Manjulaben got aggrieved and committed suicide. If the prosecution case is admitted, than she has committed suicide. But no evidence has been submitted with regard to this fact. Even if the prosecution case is believed such that the accused murdered Manjulaben, any competent and credible evidence or circumstantial evidence or direct evidence or situational evidence has not been submitted. Contrary, on seeing the deposition of the prosecution witness No. 3, it seems that the prosecution came home after funeral of the dead body of Manjula and decided to register a complaint.

Rangitbhai, the prosecution witness No. 3, has admitted the fact in cross-examination that he is the most brilliant in his family and he is dominant. When he passed from the village, he did not know that Manjulaben had died. The witness has also stated that he is a leader in his community and he advises the people in the village and visits the police station. As his wife is Sarpanch, he visits the panchayat when called on. He intervenes if a criminal case is filed in the village. The witness has testified on oath Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined that in one of the alcohol cases he persuaded a panch to testify in favour of the accused. The witness has given an evidence in his cross-examination that when he saw the dead body of Manjula, reddish type something was in her neck and that mark was not black. Whereas, the witness No. 2, who is the mother of the deceased, has stated that a contusion was on the neck of Manjula. If both the witnesses had seen the dead body of Manjula, there should have been similarity in the deposition of both the witnesses with regard to the contusion and that similarity is not found in the deposition of both the witnesses. Rangitbhai, the prosecution witness No. 3, has also stated that, when Manjulaben complained with regard to her in-laws, any investigation was not carried out as to whether she has spoken true or false. The witness has stated that Manjulaben was his niece and he believed that she has spoken truth only. The witness has stated in para 7 of the cross-examination that when Manjulaben came in his village for a marriage and went to her matrimonial home willingly. Para number 8 states that when Manjulaben came for the wedding, she told them that she and her husband were living separately and she had not told anything about her harassment at the time when the jowar harvest was about to take place. Any complaint with this regard has not been registered at the police station or any other place. When cross-examination with regard to the immoral relations has been carried out, the witness has stated that the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 3 went to bring sari for one or two times and the witness has stated that if there is a scuffle or beating, then it has to be assumed that there is a immoral relationship between accused number 1 and accused number 3. He has sister- in-law (bhabhi). His bhabhi gives him water by her hand and talks. This relation is not termed as immoral relation and if any bhabhi goes to market with her brother-in-law (diar), it can not be termed as immoral relation. The prosecution witness No. 4 has admitted a fact that he has not interrogated the complainant as to why he did not register the complaint at the police station immediately. It is also not investigated as to whether any scuffle happened between Manjula and the accused on the day of the incident at the home of accused. It was told to the people of the village in the investigation that Manjula has been Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined died because of falling into the well. The witness agrees that only such evidence comes in the case of section 306. The witness has admitted the fact that no witness has been found in his investigation who has seen the accused strangulating Manjula. The witness has also admitted the fact that he has relied on the statements of mother, father and uncle of the deceased.

(9) It is pertinent to note here that on seeing the evidence of the prosecution, it is concluded that the witnesses, who are the mother, father and uncle of the deceased Manjula, had seen the dead body of Manjula and it was in their presence that the body of Manjula was taken for cremation. At that time, the witnesses did not stop the accused from performing the last rites of the dead body nor even try so; and they did not go to the police station immediately and file a complaint nor try to give so. They discussed in the Matador about the fact that there was a contusion on the neck of Manjula and the evidence of the prosecution is contrary with each other in this regard as well."

15.1. PW-2 - Kantaben who is mother of the deceased in her deposition has stated and described about the method and manner in which the entire sequence took place. She has deposed that when she saw dead body of the deceased, there was contusion on the neck of deceased; however no such marks were seen indicating that such scuffle or beating was taken place prior thereto. She has further deposed that whatever the facts stated by her daughter was believed as true by her; however she has not verified the said facts. Witness has been cross-examined in detail where she has stated that after having come to the home, they have decided to register the complaint; however it was decided by her brother-in-law as to what contents to be mentioned in the complaint.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined 15.2. PW - 3 - Rangtibhai who is uncle of deceased, in his deposition has stated that after attending funeral of deceased, he decided to register the complaint. He has stated that when he was passing through village, he did not know that deceased had died. He has also stated that if any criminal case is filed in the village, he intervenes as he possess dominant position in the family and being leading social worker in the society. In cross examination, he has stated that when he saw dead body of deceased Manjula, there was red mark on her neck and it was not black. In his deposition, he has further stated that when deceased complained with regard to her in laws, no investigation was carried out. He has further stated that deceased was his niece and he believed that she has spoken truth. Further, he has stated that when deceased Manjulaben came for wedding, she told them that she and her husband were living separately and she has not told anything about harassment. It is to be noted that no complaint has been registered at police station. In the cross examination, the witness has stated that accused no.1 and accused no.3 went for shopping for one or two times and he has stated that if there is scuffle or beating, then it has to be assumed that there is immoral relationship between accused no.1 and accused no.3. However, the prosecution has failed to prove illicit relationship between accused no.1 and accused no.3.

15.3. Thus, the depositions of two prime witness viz. PW - 3- Rangtibhai and PW-2- Kantaben are contrary to each other, which otherwise did not support the case of the prosecution.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined 15.4. PW -4 - Somabhai Sodha who has investigated the crime, has admitted that he has not interrogated the complainant as to why he did not register the complaint immediately. He has also not investigated as to whether any scuffle took place between deceased and accused on the day of incident at the home of accused. He was told by villagers that deceased died because of falling in well. This witness has admitted the fact that he has relied on statements of mother, father and uncle of the deceased.

16. In view of above, it appears that witnesses who are mother, father and uncle of deceased - Manjulaben had seen dead body of deceased and in their presence dead body of deceased was taken for cremation. At that time, witnesses did not stop the accused from performing last rites of dead body and they did not immediately lodge complaint before the police station.

17. In view of above discussion in preceding paragraphs, it appears that there are two contradictory version of the prosecution viz. physical and mental cruelty to the deceased as well as on the aspect that deceased was done to death by the accused. There is no evidence placed record to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18. In continuation of aforesaid and considering analogous reading of entire material which culminated in conclusion arrived by Competent Court, it is not in dispute that case of prosecution appears to be two different contrary version, one of which deceased committed suicide and on the same set of facts, statement and allegations, prosecution tried to put different Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined version in the form of deceased having done to death rather murder and to prove charge against accused, much has been emphasised on deposition of PW - 2 and PW -3. Even perusing the same, contradictory version seems to appear as to the way in which alleged incident claimed to have taken place. Not only that even no so called injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Even we concur with the conclusion and reasons assigned by Competent Court as prosecution having failed to prove factum rather germane, so as to attract provision of section 306 of IPC on the basis of deceased having taken extreme step solely on the ground of she being subjected to physical and mental cruelty on account of illicit relationship between accused no.1 and accused no.3. Not only that not a single witness in connection with aforesaid incident has been examined by the prosecution though prosecution on the same set of material came with different case of deceased having done to death rather murder by accused. However, nothing sought of evidence or cogent material surface from the evidence as concluded by the Competent Court. Thus, efforts put forward by the prosecution citing two version on the same set of facts and material otherwise creates doubt rather exaggeration is shown by the witness so as to rope and arraign accused in heinous offence. Even considering the very conduct on the part of the prosecution witness before, during and subsequent to the incident seems to spread doubt as to decision was taken to lodge complaint at belated stage after much flow of water with clever mind.

19. At this stage, it is apt to refer section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which pertains to "Abetment of suicide. To Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra marital relationship between accused no.1 and accused no.3, nothing has been brought out on record by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited deceased to commit suicide. On facts, we find that the alleged extra marital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide or that accused husband had ever intended or acted in such a manner which under normal circumstances, would drive the wife to commit suicide.

20. There was no positive act or omission on part of accused due to which wife committed suicide. There was no instigation by accused to deceased and he did not engage in any conspiracy with other person so that deceased may commit suicide. There was no intentional aid by accused or any willful representation or willful concealment of material fact which promoted or instigated deceased to commit suicide. Extra martial relationship of husband may have hurt the deceased but same does not amount to abetment of suicide.

21. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the offence of section 306 of IPC.

22. Prosecution has also rest on the charge for the offence under section 302 of IPC against accused which pertains the punishment for murder, defining it as causing the death of another person with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury that is likely to cause death. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution is required to prove the intention or knowledge of the accused person, and it is not necessary that injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted by the accused person. What is material to attract offence under section 302 of the IPC is the intention / motive or knowledge with which all the acts are done irrespective of its results. In order to attract the offence under section 302 of IPC, we have minutely examined the oral evidence and all the prosecution witnesses, we found that nothing is disclosed with regard to intention / motive or knowledge so as to constitute that there is anything on the part of the respondent - accused to commit act or to commit murder. We have minutely scrutinised the entire evidence available on record. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Competent Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined 22.1. When substantial evidence is lacking to connect the accused with the crime or not brought on record sufficient evidence to establish the guilt, other corroborative evidence loses its significance.

22.2. There are nature of major contradictions, vital omissions and material discrepancies in testimonies of witnesses, which resulted into acquittal of accused and there is no dispute about the fact that deceased committed suicide.

23. We are of the view that the mere allegation without there being any material substance that the husband has developed some intimacy with another women, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to "cruelty", but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the explanation to section 498 A of IPC. Mental cruelty, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance. On facts, we find that the alleged extra marital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide or that accused husband had ever intended or acted in such a manner which would compel the wife to commit suicide.

24. It transpires that case of the prosecution does not even fall within criteria / principle culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions. In the case of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. v. State of Gujarat [2024 INSC 295], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined "6. It is true that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has to reappreciate the evidence. After re-appreciating the evidence, the first question that needs to be answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that this question has not been adverted to. Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal. The High Court has ignored the well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused. After having perused the judgment, we find that the High Court has not addressed itself on the main question.

7. The second error the High Court committed is found in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment. The High Court has gone to the extent of recording a finding that the appellants have failed to adduce evidence in their support, failed to examine the defence witness and failed to Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined establish falsity of the prosecution's version. This concept of the burden of proof is entirely wrong. Unless, under the relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden. In a case where there is a statutory presumption, after the prosecution discharges initial burden, the burden of rebuttal may shift on the accused. In the absence of the statutory provisions as above, in this case, the burden was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the High Court's finding on the burden of proof is completely erroneous. It is contrary to the law of the land.

25. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. In the instant case, the learned APP for the appellant has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.

26. It is to be noted that while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. The High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1118/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.

27. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

28. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) SATISH Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 21:52:47 IST 2025