Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rafikbhai @ Babubhai Ahmedbhai Malek on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 29/04/2026
Pronounced On : 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2145 of 2009
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAFIKBHAI @ BABUBHAI AHMEDBHAI MALEK & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
A N KADRI(7990) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA(3469) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.07.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nadiad in Special Atrocity Case No. 14/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 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 the complainant was working as a waiter at a hotel in the Panch Hatdi area of Nadiad along with other staff members. On 31.10.2008, at about Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined noon, while the complainant was sweeping in front of the hotel, the accused arrived and started abusing him using filthy and caste-related words. When the complainant objected to the abuse, the accused threatened him with death and assaulted him by giving a pipe blow on his head. As a result, the complainant sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-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 for the offences as alleged. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.14/2009. 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 08 witnesses and also produced 05 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment are as under;
Oral evidences
Witness Exhibit
Witness Name
No. No.
1 Bhupendrabhai Ambalal Vankar (Complainant who 9
Page 2 of 23
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Witness Exhibit
Witness Name
No. No.
sustained injuries)
Panch Pravinkumar Ravjibhai Talpada (Hostile) 2 (Panch witness for the Panchnama regarding the seizure 11 of the mudammal pipe) 3 Dr. Kalpanaben Dhirenkumar Shah (Medical Officer) 15 4 Rafikbhai Yakubbhai Vohra (Hostile) (Eye-witness) 18 5 Kodyaji Viraji Marwadi (Eye-witness) 19 Kiranbhai Kantibhai Talpada (Panch witness for the 6 Panchnama regarding the seizure of the mudammal 20 pipe) Yashwantbhai Jivalbhai Katara, P.S.I. (Officer who 7 22 registered the offence) Sharadbhai Jatindrabhai Singal, Deputy Police 8 23 Commissioner (Investigating Officer) Documentary evidences Sr. Exhibit Description of Document No. No. Complaint of Complainant Bhupendrabhai Ambalal 1 10 Vankar 2 Panchnama of the place of the incident 13 Panchnama regarding the seizure of the mudammal 3 21 pipe produced by the accused 4 Injury certificate of the complainant 17 5 Caste certificate of the complainant 14
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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 respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court:
8.1. The prosecution has relied on the complaint that has been filed vide Exhibit-10, wherein it has been alleged that the complainant was working as a waiter at King Hotel, and along with the complainant, one Manjurbhai, Kodyaji, Gopalbhai, Babubhai and Rajubhai were also working, and the owner of the said hotel was one Sallubhai. On 31.10.2008, at around 11 am, when the complainant was working at the said hotel, the nephew of the owner of King Hotel i.e., Mr. Rajubhai, was at the counter and the complainant was doing cleaning work outside the hotel. At that time, at around 12:30 p.m., the accused, Babubhai, alias Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Rafiqbhai, had come to the hotel and started shouting and asked the complainant as to why the complainant was abusing him. Thereafter, the accused abused the complainant of his caste, and the iron pipe which the accused had brought with him was hit by the accused two times on the head, whereby the complainant started bleeding from his head. The accused threatened the complainant that if in future the complainant abused the accused, he would kill the complainant so saying he ran away from the place of incident, and as the complainant was injured, he first went to Nadiyad Civil Hospital, and as the authorities at the Civil Hospital would only treat after a Yadi was sent from Nadiyad Town Police Station, therefore, the complainant had gone to Nadiyad Town Police Station, and after bringing the Yadi from the said police station, got treated as an indoor patient at Civil Hospital.
8.2. The prosecution has examined the complainant Bhupendrabhai Ambalal Vankar as PW-1, vide Exhibit-9. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has been working at King Hotel for the last two years, and that it is true that he was given the job at King Hotel because of the Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined reference of the accused. He has also stated that at the time when the complaint was registered, he was unconscious. He has also stated that the dispute between the complainant and the accused was because of mobile phone. The said fact has not been stated by the complainant in his complaint.
Moreover, in the cross-examination, at "Paragraph-3", he has stated that it is not true that before the said dispute, he had not filed any complaint before the concerned police station. The fact remains that other than the present complaint against the accused, there are no other previous complaints filed by the complainant against the accused. He has also stated that the police had recovered his blood- stained clothes. In his cross-examination at " Paragraph-5", the complainant states that at the time of the alleged offence, there were other employees who were present at the hotel. He has also stated that he had not seen the weapon i.e., the iron pipe, by which he was assaulted, in view of the fact that the said pipe was hit on the complainant from behind, and as he was hit from behind, he had become unconscious and he had seen the accused running away from the place of offence, and that other employees had not tried to stop the accused from running away. He has also admitted that it is Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined true that he was assisted by one Navsarjan Trust to lodge the complaint, and as per the guidance of the said Trust, he has deposed before the Court. The complainant in the complaint has not stated that there was any dispute between the complainant and the accused because of the mobile phone, and the said fact has been stated for the first time in the deposition of the complainant.
8.3. The prosecution has produced the panchnama of recovery of weapon i.e., the iron pipe, which is produced vide Exhibit-21. The panch witness, Praveenbhai Talpada, has been examined vide Exhibit-11 as PW-2. He has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. 8.4. The prosecution has thereafter examined Kiranbhai Talpada, as PW-6 vide Exhibit-6, who is the other witness of the recovery of weapon i.e, the iron pipe, which has been examined vide Exhibit-21.
8.5. The doctor who had treated the complainant, she was in the emergency department at Civil Hospital, Nadiad, Dr. Kalpanaben Dhirenkumar Shah, has been examined vide Exhibit-15 as PW-3. In her deposition, she has stated that Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined when she was shown the Muddammal article i.e., the iron pipe, she stated that the said injury could take place because of the assault by the said iron pipe, however, in her cross- examination, she has stated that the complainant, when he had come for treatment, had not given the history of the person who had assaulted him, and the injury could be an accidental injury also. Furthermore, she stated that the Injury Nos. 1 and 2 could take place because of separate weapons, and the injury could also take place because of some other weapon.
8.6. The Police Yadi is produced vide Exhibit-16, and the certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nadiad, is produced vide Exhibit-17, wherein the name of the person who had assaulted is shown as Babulbhai, and not the accused. Though, from the deposition of the complainant, the complainant and the accused have been working together for two years, and the job has also been given to the complainant because of the accused. The complainant has not given the name of the accused, and it cannot be believed that the complainant would not know the name of the accused while giving the history to the doctor. Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 8.7. The prosecution has thereafter examined Rafiqbhai Yakuqbhai Vohra as PW-4 vide Exhibit-18, who says that the said King Restaurant belongs to his uncle, and he had seen that the complainant had injured his head, and there was blood coming from his head because of the said injury. He has stated that though he was present at the time of the alleged incident, he had not heard any commotion. The said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. He has stated, thereafter, he came to know that the complainant had slipped on the floor of the hotel, and was injured because of the said incident. 8.8. The prosecution has thereafter examined the other witness vide Exhibit-19, Kodyaji Viraji Marwadi, as PW-5, whom complainant in his complaint, states that the said witness has been working with him. In his examination-in- chief, he has stated that Babul had abused the complainant of his caste, and he had hit the complainant with a pipe and thereafter, said Babul had run away from the scene of offence, and the complainant was treated. When he was shown the Mudammal pipe, he had identified the said pipe, Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined but if the cross-examination of the said witness is taken into consideration, he has stated that both the complainant and the accused were abusing each other, and at that time he was inside cleaning utensils, and he is not aware as to who had started quarrelling and abusing each other, and has also stated that he came to know that the complainant was assaulted only after he saw blood on the complainant. 8.9. The prosecution has thereafter examined the P.S.O, Yashwantbhai Jivalbhai Katara vide Exhibit-22 as PW-7. He has stated that the complaint was taken by P.S.I., S.N. Vohra and, for further investigation the matter was carried out by the Police Commissioner S.C./S.T. Cell, Anand. 8.10. The Investigating Officer Sharadbhai Jatindrabhai Singhal, who was the Deputy Police Commissioner S.C./S.T. Cell, has been examined as PW-8 vide Exhibit-23. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in his investigation, no blood stains were found at the place of offence or on the Muddamal iron pipe.
8.11. The Sessions Court has taken into consideration that the complainant, in his history to the doctor, has not Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined given the name of the accused. Moreover, if the evidence of the treating doctor, who has been examined as PW-3, clearly states that the complainant was transferred to Ahmedabad for further treatment, however, no documents pertaining to the further treatment that was given to the complainant have been produced by the prosecution.
8.12. The prosecution has failed to prove as to what abuses were made to the complainant. There are a lot of contradictions and discrepancies in the complaint and the deposition of the complainant, in view of the fact that while in the deposition, it has been stated that at the time when the accused tried to run away from the scene of offence, he had abused the complainant of his caste, but the said fact has not been stated in the complaint.
8.13. Moreover, the complainant himself has not been able to prove the Muddamal iron pipe, and in view of the fact that the complainant has stated that as he was assaulted from behind, he was not able to identify the iron pipe. The fact remains that the complainant had become unconscious at the time when the complaint was filed, and Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the fact that the complainant states that he was assisted by a Navsarjan Trust itself shows that the facts stated by the complainant are rightly not believed by the Sessions Court. 8.14. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. The complainant, in the complaint, stated that at the time when the alleged offence had taken place, one Rajubhai was sitting at the counter. The prosecution has not examined the said Rajubhai to prove the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the complainant himself states that at the time when the complaint was filed, he was unconscious, and the name stated in the certificate issued by the treating doctor also states that the complainant had given the name of Babulbhai, and the name of the accused is not Babulbhai. The stated fact also cannot be believed that the complainant will not know the real name of the accused, in view of the fact that they have been working together. 8.15. The other fact which also needs to be taken into consideration is that neither the prosecution has been able to prove that there were blood stain marks at the place of Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined offence, nor the alleged clothes of the complainant states that there were blood stain marks on the clothes of the complainant. The said clothes have not been recovered by the prosecution. Moreover, from the evidence, the prosecution has also not been able to prove that there were blood stain marks on the iron pipe that was recovered, which was stated to be the weapon which was used for assaulting the complainant.
8.16. The prosecution has tried to prove their case from the evidence of Kodyaji Viraji Marwadi, who has been examined vide Exhibit-19, as PW-5. But in his cross- examination, the said witness has categorically stated that both the accused and the complainant were abusing each other, and he does not know who first started the said abuses. In his cross-examination, he also does not state that he was present at the time when the complainant was assaulted by the accused, in view of the fact that he has stated that he was cleaning the utensils, and he came to know that the complainant was assaulted only when he saw the complainant bleeding profusely.
Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 8.17. Moreover, the Sessions Court has also rightly observed that, from the evidence of the complainant, it can be concluded that he was tutored by the said Trust, in view of the fact that the complainant himself states that the deposition has been given by the complainant as per the advice of the Navsarjan Trust.
8.18. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused for the offence as alleged. Moreover, as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajan Sakhariya Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557, every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult or intimidation is started at a victim because he is a member of a particular Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, from the allegations made in the complaint, the prosecution has not proved that the accused is guilty of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
8.19. The trial Court, while considering the evidences in detail, has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined discussing the evidence in detail, the trial court has found that the only allegation against the accused is of speaking indecent words against the caste of the complainant. The trial Court has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the alleged offence.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show 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, this Court is 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 Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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 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:
Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined "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. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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."Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s 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 Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2145/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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 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 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 Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:26 IST 2026