Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manish Vrajlal Dhakecha on 25 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 752 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANISH VRAJLAL DHAKECHA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
PAULOMEE M MEHTA(8313) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section
378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Amreli (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial
Court") in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2009 on 14.03.2012, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence
punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
Code, 1860 (IPC)and Sections 3 and 5 of the of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as " the Dowry Act").
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as
they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of
convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as
under:
2.1] Bhavnaben - the daughter of the complainant - Popatlal
Thakarshibhai Vaishnav was married to the accused No. 1 about seven
to eight years prior to the unfortunate incident and out of the wedlock
they had a five year old son - Kenil. The accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are
the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of deceased
Bhavnaben. After the marriage of Bhavnaben with the accused No. 1,
they resided happily for two and a half years, but thereafter, the
accused would mentally and physically harass Bhavnaben to such an
extent that she was fed up of the harassment and on 06.06.2009
between 17:00 hours and 20:15 hours, she hung herself with her sari to
a fan in her house and she also put a noose around the neck of her
minor son Kenil and he expired and she committed suicide. The
offense was registered by Popatlal Thakarshibhai Vaishnav - the father
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
of deceased Bhavnaben before the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Amreli, which was registered at Bagasara Police Station, being I-
C.R.No. 54 of 2009 on 07.06.2009.
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after
completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the
accused before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge , Amreli and as
the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Amreli
as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 38 of 2009.
2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused
appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the
copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the
provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 4 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 5 to 8, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge
and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced nine oral evidences and nineteen
documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at
Exh.45, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused
denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused
to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and
stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments
of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for
the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned
judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the
charges leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and
order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal
mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed
by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and
the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination,
nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent and the
judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any
basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
respondents are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, for the appellant-State and
learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval appearing for the respondent Nos. 1
to 4.Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have
reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the
case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the
entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted
that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence
on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and
indirect evidence in the case. The prosecution has fully proved the case
beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor
contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of
incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal,
improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the
appeal of the appellant - State must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval appearing for the respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the judgment and order has been passed after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the
evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-
State must be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it
would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in
acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006
SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against
acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power
exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one
significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be
interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial
court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and
plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely
because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear
in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt.
Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing
with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied)
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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
(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 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..
8. The law, with regard to acquittal appeals, is well crystallized and
in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal.
The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the
learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not
proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence
in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re
appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re
appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible
view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
9. As the appeal pertains to a case under Section 306 of the IPC, it
would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya Pradhesh
Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 (@ SLP(Cr) No. 11868/2023) passed on
17th January, 2025 which is as under:
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever
abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine."
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing
of that thing; or
Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing."
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the
ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the
commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who
Firstly - instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly - engages
with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or
Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp
(3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die'
and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the
heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is
expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the
requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be
carried out in all events. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8
SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under
Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107
IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the
suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or
to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1
SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before
holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the
court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the
case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find
out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had
left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It
is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC
there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of
suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore,
the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be
convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar
vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as
under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined
different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as
under: (SCC p. 629)
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage
to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is
not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no
evidence and material available on record where-from an inference of
the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema
(the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided
by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section
306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
[Emphasis supplied]
10. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on
record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined
Prosecution Witness No. 1 Dr. Krishna Shashikant Hariani at Exh.9.
The witness is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at Community
Health Center, Bagasara on 07.06.2009, when the dead bodies of
Bhavnaben W/o Manishbhai Vrajlal Patel and minor Kenil
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
Manishbhai Patel were brought for postmortem. The witness has
stated that she had conducted the postmortem on both the dead bodies
and the postmortem note of Bhavnaben Manishbhai Patel produced at
Exh.10 and the postmortem note of minor Kenil Manishbhai Patel is
produced at Exh.14. The witness has stated that, as per column No. 17,
on the dead body of deceased Bhavnaben, there were three ligature
marks on the neck: one oblique ligature mark starting from the left
side cheek to the left ear post side, high up in the neck to the right ear
and to the right cheek; one ligature mark on the middle side of the
neck; and one ligature mark on the front side of the neck, starting from
the right ear to the left ear. The hyoid bone fracture was on the right
side. As per the postmortem note produced at Exh.14 of minor Kenil,
there was one oblique ligature mark starting from the left ear to high
up in the neck posterior up to the right ear to cheek, the hyoid bone
was fractured on the left side. The viscera of both of the dead bodies
were preserved and the opinion regarding the cause of death was
cardio-respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to hanging of both the
dead bodies but the final cause of death was reserved to be given after
the report of the chemical analyzer. The injuries on both the dead
bodies were antemortem in nature.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the dead bodies were brought by
the relatives of Bhavnaben and she has not read the report of the
chemical analyst. There were no injuries found on the dead body of
deceased Bhavnaben excepts the ones mentioned in column No.17.
10.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Balubhai Kanjibhai Gadhiya at Exh.15 and the witness is the panch-
witness of the inquest panchnama, which is produced at Exh.12. The
witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
10.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3
Parshottambhai Dhanjibhai Padsala at Exh. 16 and Prosecution
Witness No. 4 Navnitbhai Mohanbhai Vithalani at Exh.18. Both the
witnesses are the panch-witnesses of the panchnama of the place of
offense, which is produced at Exh.17. The witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile
and have been cross-examined at length by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor but nothing to support the case of the prosecution
has come on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
10.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5,
Popatlal Thakarsibhai Vaishnav at Exh.21 and the witness is the father
of deceased - Bhavnaben and the complainant and he has fully
supported the contents of the complaint. The witness has stated that his
daughter, the accused No. 1 and their son - Kenil were residing at
Bagasara. After the birth of son - Kenil, the accused No. 1 had taken
the deceased and the minor son home and she was not able to do work
in the house and the accused would get angry. He had brought his
daughter back to her paternal house and after some-time, one teacher
Thumarbhai came and they had a compromise and it was decided that
the accused No. 1 would reside separately with the deceased and their
minor son at Bagasara. On 03.06.2009, the accused No. 1, his daughter
Bhavnaben and their minor son Kenil came to his house and after
having food, the accused No. 1 went to Bhalgam. In the evening, the
accused No. 1 phoned his son Piyush and told him that as he was living
separately, the accused Nos. 2 to 4 did not like it and not to send
Bhavnaben to her matrimonial house for some-time. In the night,
Bhavnaben had some talk with her husband and she decided to go to
Bagasara on the fifth. She reached Bagasara and at around 9 pm, he got
a phone call asking them to come immediately to Bhavnaben's house
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
and when they went, they found that she had committed suicide. The
witness has filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.22.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the facts narrated in the
examination-in-chief were told to him by his son Piyush and after the
birth of minor Kenil, his daughter Bhavnaben and the accused No.1
were residing separately at Bagasara and the rest of the accused were
residing at Bhalgam. When the police had handed over the dead body
of Bhavnaben to his son Piyush all the relatives and he were present
and he had filed a complaint in the police station on the basis of the
facts told by his son Piyush and he had affixed his signature on the
complaint, which was prepared. The complaint was filed on the next
day and not on the day of the incident and they have arrived at a
settlement out of Court. His daughter wanted to reside separately from
her in laws and the fight that was taking place between his daughter
and his son-in-law was with regard to residing separately. To avoid the
fight, the accused No. 1 had decided to stay at Bagasara and his
daughter was very sensitive and suffering from high blood pressure.
The minor son Kenil wanted to live with his grandparents and the
accused No. 1 was sad as he was residing separately from his parents .
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
10.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6
Savitaben Popatlal Vaishnav and the witness is the mother of the
deceased and wife of the complainant. The witness has not supported
the case of the prosecution and she has stated that she does not know
why the incident has occurred and her daughter had committed suicide
by hanging and the minor son Kenil was also hanged by her daughter.
The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross examined at
length by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor but nothing to
support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
10.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7
Piyushbhai Popatlal Vaishnav - the brother of the deceased Bhavnaben
and the witness has stated that two days prior to the incident, his sister
had come to her paternal home and she was residing separately with
her husband and hence they forced her and sent her back to her
matrimonial home and she had committed suicide for some other
reason. She had also hanged her minor son - Kenil and he does not
know why the incident has occurred. The witness has not supported the
case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been
cross-examined at length by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
10.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.8
Bharatbhai Bachubhai Patadiya and the witness was working as a PSO
in Bagasara Police Station and has registered the complaint of the
complainant. The witness has also stated that Accident Death No.5 of
2009 regarding the death of Bhavnaben was registered and thereafter
as the complainant filed the complaint, it was registered at Bagasara
Police Station being I-C.R.No.54 of 2009 under Sections 306, 498-A
and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Act on 07.06
2009.
9.7 Prosecution Witness No. 9 Lakshmidas Jerajbhai Hingrajiya
examined at Exh.30 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in
detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation of the
offence.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he had recorded the statements of
the neighbors of the deceased and as per their statements, the deceased
did not have any harassment in her matrimonial home .
11. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it is on record that Prosecution Witness No. 6 Savitaben
Popatlal Vaishnav - the mother of the deceased and Prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
Witness No. 7 Piyushbhai Popatlal Vaishnav - the brother of the
deceased, who are the nearest relatives of the deceased have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
The complainant - Prosecution Witness No.5 Popatlal Thakarsibhai
Vaishnav has, in the examination-in-chief, supported his complaint but
in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he had merely signed the
complaint, which was ready and all the facts narrated by him were told
to him by his son Piyush but his son Piyush has turned hostile. There
are no independent witnesses that have been examined to prove
whether there was any harassment meted out to the deceased on by the
accused, and in fact, in the evidence, it has emerged that the deceased
the accused No. 1 and their minor son Kenil were residing separately at
Bagasara from the birth of minor Kenil i.e. for more than five years,
and the rest of the accused were residing at Bhalgam. The Investigating
Officer has recorded the statements of the neighbors of the deceased
but it has emerged on record that there was no harassment to the
deceased by the accused No. 1. There is no iota of evidence on record
that there was any ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased and the
deceased was married for seven to eight years. There is no evidence in
record that the accused had met the deceased at any time prior to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
incident and there is nothing on record to show whehter any incident
had occurred immediately prior to the incident. Admittedly, Accident
Death No. 5 of 2009 was registered immediately after the incident but
the documents of Accident Death No. 5 of 2009 have not come on
record and there is nothing on record to suggest what was stated by the
complainant and the other witnesses in the inquiry of Accident Death
No. 5 of 2009. The offence has taken place on 05.06.2099 to
06.06.2009 between 17:00 hours to 20:15 hours, and the complaint has
been filed on 07.06.2009 at 22:30 hours and there is no explanation as
to why the complaint was not filed immediately even though the police
were present at the place when the incident has occurred.
11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Mahendra Awase (supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the
entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be
any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and
this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was
completely justified in extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the
accused of the charges leveled against him. The findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/752/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this
Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion
and the resultant order of extending benefit of doubt and acquittal
recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal
is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 38 of
2009 on 14.03.2012, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
