Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kailash Zaverilal N on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 06/04/2026
Pronounced On : 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1363 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KAILASH ZAVERILAL N & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DR BHATT(165) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,9
MR MR PRAJAPATI(1532) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 8
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.01.2010, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.8, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 155/2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 504, 186 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court is that on 26.07.2009, the complainant received secret information that the accused persons were consuming liquor at the place of offence. Acting upon the tip- Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined off, a raid was conducted. During the raid, the accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant party, causing injuries. Consequently, the accused were alleged to have committed the said offences. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the respondent-accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and also produced 11 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:
Oral Evidences Sr.No. Particulars Exh. no.
Testimony of Complainant Ambalal Mohanbhai 1 20 Parmar Testimony of Panch Witness Dharmendra Virendra 2 22 Jaiswal 3 Testimony of Panch Witness Aasif Ismail Nakum 24 Testimony of Panch Witness Ganeshbhai 4 25 Shankarrao Varkey Testimony of Witness Pankajbhai Dharamraj 5 27 Sonvane Testimony of Witness Vinodkumar Parsotambhai 6 28 Gamit Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Sr.No. Particulars Exh. no.
Testimony of Witness Thakorbhai Shanabhai 7 29 Tadwadiya 8 Testimony of Witness Lalbha Amarsinh Borana 30 9 Testimony of Witness Sanjay Ramdas Simpi 31 10 Testimony of Witness Babubhai Bhurabhai Patel 32 Testimony of Witness Dr. Padmakishore 11 36 Kaushalkishore Gupta Testimony of Witness Jahirbhai Ahmadmiya 12 42 Thakore Documentary Evidences Sr. No. Particulars Exh.No. 1 Complaint 21 2 Panchnama of the crime scene 23 3 Discovery Panchnama regarding weapon seizure 26 4 Original Vardhi (Report) Register 33 Vardhi dictated over mobile to A.H.C. Ambalal 5 34 Mohanbhai 6 Note regarding where the crime was registered 35 7 Original Vardhi Book 37 List regarding the presentation of the Original Vardhi 8 36 Book 9 Medical Certificate 40 10 Copy of Notification/Proclamation 43 Panchnama regarding the house search of accused 11 45 Mukesh Rameshbhai Jadhav
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.
8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and also gone through the oral and documentary evidence, independently and dispassionately. Considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court;
8.1. The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint that has been filed by Head Constable Ambalal Mohanbhai Parmar which has been produced vide Exhibit-21. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.07.2009 when the complainant was serving as Head Constable at Tarsali Chowki, at 15:27 hours he received a Vardhi on his mobile phone from Makarpura Police Station P.S.O. Shri Babubhai Bhurabhai Patel that on Tarsali Ring Road, Motinagar-2 i.e. Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Manek Park Society Common Plot, four to five boys are sitting and consuming alcohol, therefore he was told to go there, and as the telephone at his Police Station was not working, he wrote the Vardhi in the telephone book, and along with the Telephone Deputy Police Constable Pankaj Dharamraj went on a motorcycle for investigation, and went to Motinagar Manek Park Society's Common Plot, where they could not find any person therefore, they searched the surrounding field, and in one room they found ten to twelve persons at 16:00 hours consuming alcohol, and therefore the complainant tried to find the panch witnesses, and seeing that, all the persons present over there who were taking alcohol started assaulting the complainant and the other Police Constable Pankaj Dharamraj, and one of the persons Baba Patil hit Pankaj Dharamraj with a heavy wooden stick on the right leg, the thumb of the left hand and on the forehead due to which the Constable Pankaj fell down on the floor, and as the complainant tried to intervene and save the constable Pankaj, they also assaulted the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant called Makarpura Police Station from his mobile to request them to send other Police Officers in view of the assault done by the accused on the Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined complainant and Constable Pankaj Dharamraj, and thereafter P.S.I Gamit had come and had caught hold of one of the accused and the rest ran away. Thereafter, the names of the remaining five accused were revealed by one of the accused Kailash, who had been apprehended, and as Police Constable Pankaj Dharamraj was injured he was taken to the private hospital of Dr. Gupta for the treatment. 8.2. The prosecution has examined the complainant Ambalal Parmar, vide Exh-20, in his deposition he has stated that when he had left with Police Officer Pankaj Dharamraj, he was on the duty of telephone operator, he also stated that although, the telephone was not working but the wireless messages were working. He has also admitted that the person who is on duty as a telephone operator is not permitted to leave the Police Station. He has also informed that he did not get the police Vardhi about people drinking alcohol in a room or on the field.
8.3. The prosecution has produced a panchnama of scene of offence vide Exh-23, and the panch witness Dharmendra Virendra Jaiswal has been examined as PW-2 Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined vide Exh-22, and another witness Asif Ismail Nakum has been examined as PW-3 vide Exh-24, both have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. 8.4. The prosecution has thereafter produced the panchnama of recovery of weapon vide Exh-26, the panch witness Ganeshbhai Shankarrao Varkey has been examined vide Exh-25 as PW-4, he has also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
8.5. The prosecution has examined the other Police Officer who was present at the site Pankajbhai Dharmraj Sonwane, as PW-5, vide Exh-27. There is a contradiction between the complainant and the said witness with respect to the incident that had happened before they had left to investigate on the said date. The said witness has stated that on the said date there were persons at the Police Station who had come for settlement of their divorce, and the complainant has stated that no such party had come on the said date and time when they were about to leave for investigation. It transpires that on 26.07.2009, he was on duty at Tarsali Police Chowki, and his duty hours were from Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 14:00 to 20:00 hours. He has stated that at the relevant time he was present at the chowki, and Head Constable Ambalal Mohanlal i.e. complainant, was also present there. On that day, the telephone of the chowki was not functioning and, therefore, a message was conveyed by P.S.O. Babubhai on the mobile phone of Ambalal. Thus, according to this witness, he as well as the complainant Ambalal were present on duty at the relevant date and time. However, in order to establish that both the police personnel were on official duty, the Investigating Officer has not produced or seized any documentary evidence, such as the attendance register or duty roster, during the course of investigation. This fact has been admitted by the Investigating Officer, Jahirbhai Thakor, in his cross-examination at Exhibit-42. Therefore, at the outset, though it is the case of the prosecution that both the police personnel were present on duty and had proceeded to the place of offence in discharge of their official duties on the basis of the message received, no documentary evidence has been produced on record to substantiate their presence on duty at the relevant time.
8.6. There is also a contradiction with respect to the Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined fact that the complainant said that the Inspector Vinodkumar Parsotambhai Gamit had come in his personal Maruti Van, and had taken the constable Pankaj Dharamraj to the hospital of Dr. Gupta in his Maruti Van, while the said witness in his deposition has denied the fact that the said Police Inspector Gamit had come in his Maruti Van, and state that he had come on a motorcycle along with the one officer named Sanjay.
8.7. Upon comparative appreciation of the evidence of the complainant Ambalal Mohanlal and injured witness Pankaj Dharmaraj, material contradictions are evident. The complainant states that no persons were found in the common plot of Manek Park Society and that, in a nearby hut, 10-12 persons were seen coming out, whereupon 4-5 persons assaulted him and Pankaj and all accused collectively attacked Pankaj. In contrast, Pankaj deposes that no persons were found in the common plot, but in a nearby doorless hut situated in a field, 10-12 persons were found consuming liquor, and upon inquiry of their names, Ambalal informed superior officers and called for additional police assistance. Further, the Investigating Officer J.D. Thakor at Exh. 42 Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined admits that PSI Gamit was not on station duty, and no evidence surfaced that he reached the spot with police staff or pursuant to any message. However, the complainant asserts that PSI Gamit arrived with police personnel in a Maruti van and other private vehicles upon request for assistance. Thus, material inconsistencies arise regarding the manner of incident, conduct of accused, and arrival of additional police, rendering the prosecution version doubtful. 8.8. On an overall reading of the depositions of the complainant Ambalal and Police Constable Pankaj Dharmaraj, further inconsistencies emerge. The complainant states that, considering the presence of a larger number of persons, he called for additional police assistance, whereupon PSI Gamit arrived in a Maruti van along with police staff and others in private vehicles, and at that time 8-10 persons attempted to flee. He further states that one accused, Kailash, was apprehended at the spot while the others escaped, and that both, he and injured Pankaj were taken to Gupta Hospital for treatment in the said Maruti van. However, Pankaj Dharmaraj, in his deposition, states that both police Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined personnel had reached the indicated place in discharge of their duty on the basis of the message, but no persons were found there, and while proceeding further, they themselves went to a nearby field and discovered persons consuming liquor. Thus, there is inconsistency regarding the sequence of events, presence of accused, and subsequent actions taken at the spot.
8.9. The said witness also states that, it is not true that before the incident wherein the accused had assaulted him and the complainant, he did not know the accused. The P.S.I. Gamit has been examined vide Exh-28 as PW-6, he also states that he had reached the place of the incident on a motorcycle, he denies taking Constable Pankaj Dharamraj to the doctor in the Maruti Van. The other factor which has also been taken into consideration by the Sessions Court is that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that, as to who had informed Inspector Gamit to reach the place of offense. In view of the fact that the complainant said that as soon as the accused started assaulting him and the Constable Pankaj Dharamraj, he had called the Police Station from his mobile. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined as to how the said Inspector Gamit had reached the place of offense.
8.10. Moreover, the complainant has stated in his deposition that, as soon as the accused started assaulting the complainant, and when Inspector Gamit had reached the place, there was a lot of commotion, and the people from the neighbouring society had gathered, and if the deposition of Police Officer Gamit is taken into consideration, he has stated that it is not true that on hearing the commotion, any person from the surrounding society had gathered. 8.11. It is also important to take into consideration that there are lot of contradictions from the deposition of the complainant from the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution as to how they had taken the sole accused who were caught from the scene of offense Kailash to the Police Station, as it transpired that Police Officer Gamit had taken him to the Police Station on his motorcycle whereas, it also transpires that Police Officer Gamit had taken the injured Constable Pankaj Dharamraj to the private hospital of Dr. Gupta whereas, the complainant states that after the incident Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined they had taken the injured constable Pankaj Dharamraj to the hospital of Dr. Gupta in a Maruti Van which belongs to Mr. Gamit.
8.12. The prosecution has examined the Police Officer Lalbha Amarsinh Borana who has stated in deposition that his statement has not been taken by any Police Officer. 8.13. The prosecution has thereafter examined Sanjay Ramdas Simpi, the Police Officer, who had gone with Police Officer Gamit, as soon as they came to know that the complainant and Pankaj Dharamraj have been assaulted. The said witness Sanjay Ramdas Simpi has been examined as PW-9 vide Exh-31. There are a lot of contradictions in his deposition whereas, the complainant and Inspector Gamit and constable Pankaj Dharamraj states that, other than one accused all ran away on their motorcycle, the said witness PW-9, states that all the accused ran away leaving behind their motorcycle.
8.14. The prosecution has thereafter examined Babubhai Bhurabhai Patel, who was the Police Officer at the relevant Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined point of time and had registered the Vardhi, which is produced vide Exh-32.
8.15. At the outset, serious doubt arises regarding the version of the police authorities. If, as alleged, about 10-12 persons were present in the hut consuming liquor, only nine accused have been apprehended. Both the complainant and injured witness Pankaj Dharmaraj claim to have seen all such persons at the time of the incident, and Pankaj had even started noting down their names; however, the remaining persons were neither apprehended nor identified. No explanation has been offered by the Investigating Officer in this regard. Thus, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish the presence and identity of all the alleged persons at the scene of offence. 8.16. Further, the complainant states in his deposition that he had left his motorcycle at the place of incident, whereas his superior officer, PSI Gamit, has stated that he had instructed that injured Pankaj Dharmaraj be taken to the hospital on the complainant's motorcycle. Thus, it becomes doubtful whether Pankaj was taken to the hospital Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined in PSI Gamit's Maruti van or on the motorcycle of the complainant, in view of these contradictory versions. 8.17. The prosecution has admitted that no test identification parade was conducted in the present case. Thus, unless the prosecution establishes, in a cogent and continuous manner, the presence of all the accused at the scene of offence, the very occurrence of the alleged incident becomes doubtful.
8.18. Thus, upon conjoint reading of the depositions of all the police witnesses, material contradictions emerge regarding whether Ambalal and Pankaj were in fact present on duty at the relevant time, whether the information (message) was genuinely received, and whether the telephone at the chowki was actually out of order. These witnesses, though police personnel, have deposed inconsistently and in contradiction to each other on material particulars. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case on the basis of their testimonies.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.
10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93:
(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the 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 Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined taken a different view.
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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. Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:
"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
17. 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, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
18. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.
19. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) ADITYA SINGH Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:20 IST 2026