Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pravinbhai Ramjibhai Jogal on 20 November, 2024
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 281 of 2000
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVINBHAI RAMJIBHAI JOGAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 20/11/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, against the judgement and
order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.99 of 1995 on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
20.12.1999. By the aforesaid judgement, the
Trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused
of the offenses punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on
30.09.1995, at around 15:00 hours, the accused
at his house, had sprinkled kerosene on the
deceased Manishaben Pravinbhai-the wife of the
accused, causing her death by burns. According
to the prosecution, the motive of the accused was
that he had a doubt that his wife had an illicit
relation with the distant relative. The accused
was tried for offenses under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. In pursuance of the investigation, a First
Information Report was lodged with the
Bagasara Police Station for the offenses
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. During the investigation, several
statements were recorded of the witnesses,
various panchnamas were drawn including the
panchnama of the scene of the offense. Medical
evidence was collected for proving the case of
the prosecution.
4. Upon committal of the case to the learned
Sessions Judge, Amreli, the Sessions Judge
framed charges vide Exh.2 against the
respondent-accused for the aforesaid offenses.
The respondent-accused pleaded not guilty. The
prosecution had examined 14 witnesses and
produced various documentary evidences. The
details of the evidences led by the prosecution
are as under:
Relevant Oral Evidences
PW Exh Pg. Name Remarks Relevant
No. No. No. Para
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
Judgment/
Pg.No.
1 7 51 Dr.AS Vadher, P.M.-relevant para Issue-1-
Amreli Civil 7-Pg.No.54. pg.156,
Issue-2-
Para14,
pg.159
2 10 61 Natwarlal Panch of Scene of Para-
Nandalal Offence. 20,pg.171
3 12 67 Kirtilal Panch Inquest-
Harjivandas Hostile
4 14 74 Lilaben Jilubhai Panch Inquest-
Hostile
5 15 76 Alabhai Panch Clothes of
Devdanbhai deceased
6 17 79 Bhalubhai Panch of Arrest and
Nanjibhai condition Accused-
Does not support
prosecution case,
signed prepared
panchanama as per
cross-examination.
7 20 85 Jayaben Mother of Para-17,
Bavbhai Mansukhbhai-who pg.164
had alleged illicit
relationship with
deceased
8 23 95 Mansukhbhai Alleged Illicit Para-18,
Bavanjibhai relationship with pg.168
deceased. Cousin of
deceased
9 26 102 Govind Relative Para-22,
Dosalbhai pg.171
10 29 105 Dadubhai PSO- Amreli City Para-22,
Suragbhai Police Station, does pg.171
not know about non-
recording of DD.
11 36 114 Laljibhai H.C. Recorded Para-16,
Arjanbhai complaint of the pg.161-163
deceased-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
contradictions and
unclear whether she
could speak or not.
Admits no DD could
be recorded-relevant
pg.115-116
12 39 120 Kiritsinh PSI, Bagasra- Does Para-23,
Bapalsinh not support pg.172
prosecution case
and gives version of
accident as narrated
by negihbors.
13 48 139 Dr.Prahlad Dr. Who treated Para-17,
Manilal Patel. deceased and pg.166
accused for burn Para-
injuries. 19,pg.170
14 56 144 Dr.B.L. Dabhi Dr. Who treated
accused for burn
injuries.
Documentary Evidences
Exh.No. Pg.No. Details
2 44 Charge-Frame
5 49 Muddamal list.
8 56 PM Note-Report
18 81 Arrest
Panchanama
40 124 Station Diary-
Amreli
49 141 Pravin Ramji injury
certificate.
50 142 Ramji Jetha injury
certificate.
57 145 Certificate MO
Amreli
5. The prosecution examined these witnesses
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
including the Medical Officer and the police
witness. At the end of the evidence, a statement
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was recorded. The Trial Court
recorded acquittal of the accused.
6. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit
that the order acquitting the accused was
contrary to law and evidence on record and the
same is based on the irrelevant material.
6.1 Mr.Sharma would submit that the Trial
Court has committed an error in acquitting the
respondent and not properly appreciating the
evidence produced on record. He would submit
that the Trial Court has given waitage to the
minor omissions and contradictions in the
statement of the witnesses. The reasons
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
assigned by the Trial Court while acquitting the
accused are unjust, improper, perverse and
unwarranted.
7. Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf
of the respondent.
8. We have perused the judgement of the Trial
Court and we found that having gone into the
aspects of the expert evidence and medical
witnesses and the deposition of doctors, the
Sessions Court found that it was not possible to
consider the evidence to suggest that the burn
injuries caused were actually out of an incident
as made out by the prosecution. We have
therefore assessed the evidence of each of the
witnesses and having independently applied our
mind. For the reasons stated hereunder, we see
no reason to take a view different from the one
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
taken by the Sessions Court.
8.1 As per the case of the prosecution, the
deceased was married to the accused Pravinbhai
Ramjibhai. It was the case of the prosecution
that on the date of the incident, the accused had
blamed the deceased that she had illicit
relationship with the cousin of the accused, as a
result of which, the accused sprinkled kerosene
and striking a matchstick, caused burn injuries,
as a result of which, she died after being
transferred to Civil Hospital from the
Government Hospital at Bagasara. The
prosecution story further takes a turn that a
night previous to the date of the incident on
29.09.1995, Mansukhbhai Bavanjibhai Harijan
who was the cousin of the deceased had visited
the home. That he had interacted with the
deceased Manishaben and the accused Pravin
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
Ramji and had tea during the night. The
deposition of Mansukh Bavanjibhai Harijan - the
cousin has been recorded at Exh.23 as PW-8. He
in his deposition would submit that after having
tea, Pravinbhai called his wife Manisha, told her
to admit that if she had an illicit relationship with
Mansukhbhai, she should slap him, which she
did. After this incident, Mansukhbhai left the
home. This is a version also given by the
deceased whose statement was recorded in the
FIR at Exh.37.
8.2 After the sustaining of burn injuries,
Manishaben was examined at the Amreli Civil
Hospital. Dr.Arshi Sidibhai Vadher was the
Medical Officer who was present at the Civil
Hospital, Amreli. He is the Prosecution Witness-1
at Exh.7. Perusal of his testimony indicates that
Manishaben who was brought to the Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
Hospital from the Bagasara Government Hospital
as she was referred from the Bagasara
Government Hospital. The referral note is at
Exh.51. The deceased Manishaben had suffered
burn injuries to the extent of 80 to 90%. The
testimony of Dr.Vadher when read, proceeds to
indicate that Manishaben had suffered severe
burn injuries and was in pain. She was therefore
under a medication Fortwin. Fortwin has an
element of morphine and is administered to a
patient who has sustained burn injuries and is
undergoing severe pain. His testimony indicates
that since this injection was administered to the
deceased Manishaben when she came to the
hospital, was in a state of dizziness and that she
had also been given analgesic injection which is
a treatment given for the burn injuries. The
deposition of Dr.Vadher indicates that as a result
of this, the patient would go into a shock and in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
such circumstances, such a victim would avoid
interaction so as to be able to give any
statement. The nature of testimony of this
Medical Officer would therefore indicate that
before recording the complaint, it was seriously
in doubt that Manishaben could give a statement
of having sustained burn injuries directly
implicating the accused.
8.3 There is one more reason why incident in
question is in doubt inasmuch as in the history
recorded by the Medical Officer at Bagasara
Hospital who treated the deceased viz.
Dr.Prahlad Patel was examined at Exh.48
suggested while recording the medical history,
Manishaben had stated that she had sustained
these burn injuries as a result of she catching
fire while engaging with a stove. It has also
come on record from the evidence of Dr.Vadher
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
that though the Executive Magistrate Shri
Chauhan was called to record a dying
declaration, looking to the medical condition of
the deceased Manishaben, no dying declaration
was recorded by Dr.Chauhan and the deceased
succumbed to her injuries in the evening at
19:05.
8.4 Dr.Prahlad Patel who was the Medical
Officer of the Community Health Center at
Bagasara and was examined at Exh.48, testified
that when the deceased Manishaben was
brought to the hospital, she has sustained 80 to
90% of the burn injuries and therefore it was
decided that she should be immediately
transferred to the Civil Hospital as she was in a
critical condition. Further reading of the
evidence of Dr.Patel would indicate that she was
brought in a very critical condition and she was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
not in a position to give any statement. This
evidence also therefore would question the
genuineness and the veracity of the complaint
recorded at Exh.37.
8.5 The police head constable of the Amreli City
Police Station - Laljibhai Arjanbhai has been
examined at Exh.36. According to his testimony,
on 13.09.1995, when he was working at the
Amreli City Mobile Police Station and while he
was patrolling, he received a wireless message
and therefore at 5:35 he went to the police
station and he was directed to go to the Civil
hospital Burns Ward to record the complaint.
When he reached to the Burns Ward, he found
Manishaben laying having sustained burn
injuries. On he trying to question the deceased,
it is his version that Manishaben refused to
testify and insisted that she be served with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
water. She was refused water. She therefore
could not testify. After having waited for some
time and recorded the complaint in whatever
manner that happened, Laljibhai Arjanbhai
Chavada left the place. The evidence therefore
suggest one more reason as to why the FIR's
version cannot be believed. The medical
condition as explained Dr.Vadher and Dr.Prahlad
Patel when read together with the evidence of
the police constable Lalji Arjan who recorded the
complaint, when read in conjunction, could
therefore seriously create doubt on the veracity
of the version recorded in the FIR filed recording
the statement of the deceased, particularly when
she was found to be in a sedated condition as a
result of injection morphine and that she was
incoherent in her speech.
8.6 What is also further evident is that though
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
the complaint was sought to be recorded at 5:45
in the evening, what is evident from the police
records is that the Police Station Officer who
reached after recording this complaint at 8:30 in
the evening, the FIR was only lodged in the
police station at 22:13 hours. The delay is
unexplained in lodging the FIR and therefore, the
finding of the learned Sessions Judge that this
seriously creates a doubt on the veracity of the
complaint compounded by the background on
which it was recorded, cannot be believed.
8.7 There is one more reason why the case of
the prosecution cannot be accepted. On
sustaining of burn injuries, Manishaben was
shifted to the Amreli Civil Hospital, where,
Jayaben, Manishaben's aunt with whose son, she
was alleged to have illicit relationship with, has
reached to the ward according to her version.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
She has inquired from Manishaben as to what
has happened. Jayaben's evidence is recorded at
Exh.20. According to her, on she having come to
know of the incident, while she was at Moti
Marad, she immediately left for Junagadh at
10:30. The bus would take her to Junagadh from
Dhoraji. The distance from Moti Marad to
Junagadh is about 18 to 19 kms. She reached
Junagadh at about 11:00 A.M. and from there at
around 12.30, she left Junagadh for Bagasara.
She reached Bagasara Bus Station at 4:45 in the
evening. She went to the residence of
Pravinbhai where the parents of Pravinbhai and
the in-laws of Manisha were present where she
told that Manisha has been taken to the Civil
Hospital, Amreli. As a result of this, she left for
Amreli Civil Hospital where she found that there
are others waiting outside the burns ward. She
has reached the Civil Hospital, Amreli, at 6.30 in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
the evening. According to her deposition,
Manishben was in proper condition and she has
told her about the incident. There is obviously a
contradiction between the testimony of Jayaben
who met her with with the medical evidence of
Dr.Vadher which indicates that when the patient
was brought to him at 5:20 in the evening, she
was in a critical condition having suffered 80 to
90% of burns. She was heavily sedated as a
result of having administered Fortwin injection.
Coupled with this fact, the medical evidence of
Dr.Prahlad Patel at Bagasara, it was therefore
found that the testimony of Jayaben who met her
more than an hour and a half, after the version
so given by the Doctor, cannot be believed.
8.8 Perusal of the evidence of Govindbhai
Dosabhai Harijan at Exh.26 also would indicate
that Manishaben was not in a position to speak.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
This was therefore directly contradict the
evidence of Jayaben. When the testimony of
Mansukh Bavanjibhai at Exh.23 is also examined,
what is also found from the evidence is that
Pravinbhai-the accused has sustained the burn
injuries. He had been taken to the Bagasara
Medical Center where doctor Prahladbhai who
has examined and whose testimony is at Exh.48
indicates that the Pravinbhai was brought to the
hospital on 01.10.1995 and he has sustained
burn injuries on the hand. The fingers on the
rear side has sustained second degree burns.
Both the hands had sustained first degree burns.
A certificate of injury is on record at Exh.49.
Dr.Patel's testimony indicates that when the
injured accused Pravin was brought in and was
asked about his history, he had said that he had
sustained these burn injuries as he was trying to
save his wife. This version therefore seriously
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
put in doubt the prosecution story that it was the
accused who was responsible having committed
the incident.
8.9 Based on the appreciation of evidence
entirely, in light of the FIR at Exh.37 which was
found to be not genuine, the absence of any
dying declaration recorded and the contradiction
of the version of the witnesses, the Trial Court
found that the prosecution was not able to bring
home the charge against the accused of having
committed an offense under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.
9. Conscious of the fact that this is a judgement by
which the accused has earned an acquittal and in
light of the decisions of the Supreme Court,
when two views are possible, the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the trial Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
should not be interfered with by the Appellate
Court unless for the special reasons. A beneficial
reference of the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of State of Rajasthan versus Ram
Niwas reported in (2010) 15 SCC 463 be
made in this regard. In the said case, it has been
observed as under:-
"6. This Court has held in Kalyan v. State of U.P.,
(2001) 9 SCC 632 :
"8. The settled position of law on the powers to be
exercised by the High Court in an appeal against an
order of acquittal is that though the High Court has
full powers to review the evidence upon which an
order of acquittal is passed, it is equally well settled
that the presumption of innocence of the accused
persons, as envisaged under the criminal
jurisprudence prevalent in our country is further
reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court.
Normally the views of the trial court, as to the
credibility of the witnesses, must be given proper
weight and consideration because the trial court is
supposed to have watched the demeanour and
conduct of the witness and is in a better position to
appreciate their testimony. The High Court should
be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by
the trial court. In Kali Ram V. State of Himachal
Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, this Court observed that
the golden thread which runs through the web of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
administration of justice in criminal case is that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in
the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and
the other to his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted. The
Court further observed:
"27. It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are
undesirable and shake the confidence of the people
in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the
wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The
consequences of the conviction of an innocent
person are far more serious and its reverberations
cannot but be felt in a civilized society. Suppose an
innocent person is convicted of the offence of
murder and is hanged, nothing further can undo the
mischief for the wrong resulting from the unmerited
conviction is irretrievable. To take another instance,
if an innocent person is sent to jail and undergoes
the sentence, the scars left by the miscarriage of
justice cannot be erased by any subsequent act of
expiration. Not many persons undergoing the pangs
of wrongful conviction are fortunate like Dreyfus to
have an Emile Zola to champion their cause and
succeed in getting the verdict of guilt annulled. All
this highlights the importance of ensuring, as far as
possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction
of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of
the innocent, of course, is always there in any
system of the administration of criminal justice Such
a risk can be minimised but not ruled out altogether
It may in this connection be apposite to refer to the
following observations of Sir Carleton Alien quoted
on page 157 of "The Proof of Guilt" by Glanville
Williams, second edition:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
"I dare say some sentimentalists would assent to the
proposition that it is better that a thousand, or even
a million, guilty persons should escape than that one
innocent person should suffer; but no responsible
and practical person would accept such a view. For
it is obvious that if our ratio is extended indefinitely,
there comes a point when the whole system of
justice has broken down and society is in a state of
chaos."
28. The fact that there has to be clear evidence of
the guilt of the accused and that in the absence of
that it is not possible to record a finding of his guilt
was stressed by this Court in the case of Shivaji
Sahebrao, (1973) 2 SCC 793, as is clear from the
following observations:
"Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely, may be guilty before a
court, can be convicted and the mental distinction
between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure considerations."
"9. The High Court while dealing with the appeals
against the order of acquittal must keep in mind the
following propositions laid down by this Court,
namely, (i) the slowness of the appellate court to
disturb a finding of fact; (ii) the noninterference with
the order of acquittal where it is indeed only a case
of taking a view different from the one taken by the
High Court."
8. In Arulvelu and another versus State reported in
(2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 206, the Supreme
Court after discussing the earlier judgments,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
observed in para No. 36 as under:
"36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to
the definite conclusion that the appellate court
should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of
acquittal particularly in a case where two views are
possible. The trial court judgment can not be set
aside because the appellate court's view is more
probable. The appellate court would not be justified
in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it
arrives at a clear finding on marshaling the entire
evidence on record that the judgment of the trial
court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in
law."
10.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 learned 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
circumscribed and if 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.
11.Scope of appeal against acquittal is well laid
down in case of Chandrappa and ors. vs. State
of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415,
it was observed:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
powers of appellate Court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds',
'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions',
'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize
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 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."
12.Even recently, the Apex Court in the case of
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others
vs. State of Karnataka [(2024) 8 SCC 149]
has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
"39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of
Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated
the legal position covering the field after considering
various earlier judgments and held as below: -
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court
culled out the following general principles regarding the
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal in the following
words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415]
" 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
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."
40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v.
State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court
summarized the principles governing the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal
against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -
"8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is
required to consider whether the view taken by the trial
court is a possible view which could have been taken on
the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the
ground that another view was also possible; and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in
favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four
corners of the following principles:-
41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
41.2 That the same is based on a misreading/omission to
consider material evidence on record;
41.3 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.
42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent
findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."
13.We find no reason to interfere with the
judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
No.99 of 1995 on 20.12.1999. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed. Resultantly, the
impugned judgment and order of the trial court
is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand
cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for,
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court
forthwith.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
ANKIT SHAH
