Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vallabhbhai Jerambhai Goti on 27 November, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 603 of 2004
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 298 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VALLABHBHAI JERAMBHAI GOTI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK MEHTA APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
H B SHETHNA(2436) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. Criminal Appeal No.603 of 2004 is filed by the appellant - State of
Gujarat against the acquittal of accused no.1 in respect of offence
punishable under Sections 306 read with section 114 Indian Penal Code
and in respect of accused Nos.2 to 5 for acquittal for the offences
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
punishable under Sections 498 A, 302, 306, 107 and 114 of Indian Penal
Code passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions case No.264 of
1999 dated 04/02/2004. Whereas the Criminal Appeal No.298 of 2004 is
preferred by the org. accused No.1 against the said judgment and order
convicting accused No.1 under Sections 498-A r/w sec.107 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as
under:
2.1. The prosecution case in short is that deceased Rasila was divorcee
and again married to the org. accused No.1-respondent no.1 before 12
years of the fate of the incident. The deceased used to go to her parental
house on some occasions and asking for gold ornaments as demanded by
the respondent no.1 and as such she was given gold ornament two to three
time by the father complainant. Initially, everything was going good for 5
years. Thereafter, deceased Rasila was harassed by beating by the
respondents for meagre reasons. On interference of some respectable
persons in the society, the deceased and respondent no.1 her husband
went to Bhavnagar. They had two children and the children were not
allowed to be with the deceased Rasila and they were sent to reside with
their uncle respondent no.5 who was brother-in-law of deceased Rasila
and therefore she had to stay alone. That before three months of the date
of the incident, there was harassment to the deceased and again
agreement was entered into and therefore again the deceased Rasila along
with her children and husband respondent no. 1 came Surat to stay there.
That on the date of the incident i.e. on 11.8.97 the complainant had a
message regarding death of the deceased Rasila and when he went to
Surat, he found dead body of deceased Rasila in the Civil Hospital, Surat.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
It is the case of prosecution that accused persons gave poisonous
substance to the deceased and thereby committed her death and
committed the offence as stated herein above.
2.2. On these facts, the complaint was filed with Katargam Police
Station. The Police after investigation charge-sheeted the accused for the
aforesaid offences. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before the
learned JMFC, Court. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try
said offence, the case was committed to the Special Court and it was
registered as Sessions Case No.264 of 1999 for trial. On conclusion of
evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various
incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent-
accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided under Section 313
of the Code. In the further statement, the respondent-accused denied all
incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further
stated that he is innocent and a false case has been filed against him.
After examining the evidence, witness testimonies and submissions from
both sides, the learned Court below recorded the finding in favour of the
respondent-accused acquitting him of the charges levelled against them.
3. We have heard learned APP for the appellant - State, learned
Advocate Mr. Shethna, appearing for the org. accused No.1 and minutely
examined oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced before
the learned Sessions Court concerned.
4. Mr. J K Shah, learned APP appearing for the appellant - State
submits that the impugned order of acquittal is required to be interfered
with as the evidence produced on record proves the involvement of the
accused in the commission of crime in question. He has further submitted
that the learned Sessions Judge has believed the evidence with regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
harassment being meted out to the deceased by the org. accused No.1
however has acquitted other accused; but in fact, it is the case of
prosecution that all the accused persons were harassing the deceased. It is
therefore submitted that that all the accused persons, committed offences
punishable under Sections 307, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4.1 It is further submitted that the evidence of the complainant, whose
daughter was died on account of the consumption of poisonous substance
at the hands of the accused, has been examined as Prosecution Witness
No.1, and his complaint is on record at Exhibit 15. The complainant has
provided strong and reliable evidence linking the accused with the crime
in question. The testimony of the complainant is corroborated by the
medical evidence of doctor who conducted the postmortem on the body
of the deceased, as also the other piece of evidence i.e. relatives of the
deceased who also deposed before the Court that deceased was subjected
to mental harassment at the hands of the accused and in furtherance
thereof, she was died due to consumption of poisonous substance.
4.2 Learned APP has further submitted that the prosecution has also
proved the offence by leading substantial evidence and it has come on
record to show that there was harassment at the hands of the accused
persons and thus the deceased was died due to consumption of poisonous
substance. However, the learned trial Court has not considered the said
evidence and therefore it is submitted to quash the finding of the trial
Court in this regard recording acquittal of the accused and to convict the
accused for the said offence.
4.3 Learned APP has further referred to the evidence of the other
material witnesses and submitted that from the evidence of the said
witnesses, the involvement of the accused in commission of the crime is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
proved and therefore, this Court may interfere with the said finding and
record the conviction. He would therefore submit to allow this appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr.Shethna appearing for the
respondent - org. accused No.1 has submitted that prosecution has failed
to prove the charges levelled against the respondents - accused as the
evidence of the complainant is doubtful and no plausible reasons are
shown by the prosecution as to why their evidence ought to have been
believed since they are the interested witnesses and thus their evidence
are not reliable and believable. He has further submitted that there are
omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
and the same cannot be ignored. It is submitted that merely because to
convict the accused, the entire evidence though does not surface the
involvement of the accused; cannot be said to have been believed and the
learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and thereby come to the conclusion while acquitting the
respondents - accused. He has further submitted that insofar as the
offence alleged against the org. accused No.1 and his conviction therefor
is concerned, no such witness has stated in clear terms; however the
learned Judge has erroneously convicted the org. accused No.1 and
therefore it is requested to quash and set aside the said judgment and
order of conviction. He would further submit that since the elderly
persons of the family have come together and issue was amicably settled
between the parties and to that effect such affidavit has been filed by the
brother of the deceased (PW No.5) as also the sister of the deceased (PW
7) as the org. complainant PW 1 father of the deceased girl was died and
it has been stated that parties have settled the dispute inter se and it is
prayed to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the
case. He would therefore submit to dismiss the present appeal while
confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
Court and to allow the appeal filed by the org. accused No.1.
6. Heard the learned APP for the appellant - State and learned
Advocate appearing for the respondents - accused and perused the
deposition of witnesses as also documentary evidence placed on record as
well as the order passed by the learned Sessions Court.
7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that private parties i.e. org.
accused side and org. complainant side have arrived at an amicable
settlement between them and as stated and contended by learned advocate
for the org. accused No.1 affidavit has been filed on behalf of the brother
and sister of the deceased that they have no objection if the order of
conviction and sentence is set aside or in the alternate the sentence
undergone by the accused may be ordered to be confirmed as already
undergone, as also the judgment and order of acquittal recorded in favour
of other accused may not be disturbed.
8. Furthermore, if the evidence so recorded by the prosecution is
examined, it emerges from the evidence recorded by the learned Court
that marriage span of the deceased was more than 20 to 22 years as on the
date of the incident; it was the second marriage of the deceased and out of
the said wed-lock, they were having two children and previously due to
some marital dispute she was returned and went back after consolidation
by the elderly persons in the home. It appears that the deceased may have
consumed some poisonous substance and the forensic science laboratory
report also supports this possibility; however, the oral evidence on record
by the prosecution does not directly establish this fact. In the testimony of
the deceased's brother, Hasmukhbhai (Exhibit-23), he has stated that
when the Laljibhai had told him that Rasila administered an injection and
some unknown person told him this fact to him, he had some doubt in this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
regard. The prosecution, however, has not been able to produce accurate
and reliable evidence. From the beginning, the prosecution attempted to
show that all the accused had acted together under a pre-planned but no
evidence regarding the injection has been presented, even though the
prosecution initially tried to rely upon that theory.
9. Similarly, if the prosecution intended to suggest that the deceased
seemed to have consumed poison, no poisonous substance or material
was recovered during investigation. Even if the prosecution witnesses
attempt to show that the accused were responsible for causing Rasila's
death and contended that the offence is of murder, such an inference
cannot be accepted unless they produce credible and legally admissible
evidence supporting each element of the offence. The medical evidence
also does not show that she had been administered any injection. To the
contrary, the medical evidence does support the suggestion that she may
have consumed poison. From the testimony of Dr.Medhrekhaben
Makwana, it clearly emerges that if the poison was highly toxic and if the
deceased had not been given timely gastric wash, the poison could cause
severe internal complications, leading to rapid and almost immediate
death. Therefore, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, unless the
prosecution proves that the accused committed the act intentionally, the
offence of murder cannot be established.
10. In the present case, it has not been proved that the accused, acting
with common intention, deliberately caused the death of Rasila. From the
evidence so produced, it appears that after the marriage, certain demands
for gold ornaments and dowry were made. According to the depositions
of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it also emerges that Rasila
was not provided with sufficient household expenses, nor was she given
any money for her personal needs. It further appears that there were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
frequent quarrels at the doorstep, and that although at the time of
marriage she had brought 31 tolas of gold ornaments and various
household articles, disputes continued between her and the husband
thereafter. Despite these circumstances, the evidence suggests that Rasila
and the accused had a relationship that showed some degree of mutual
understanding. The prosecution witnesses have attempted to give
evidence regarding the quarrels that occurred at the doorway, but those
facts, even if true, do not establish any direct or conclusive link to the
accused.
11. Furthermore, there is insufficient material to support the
prosecution's inference that all the accused, acting with a common
intention, instigated or assisted in bringing about Rasila's death. Even
though no specific incident of cruelty has been proven during the first
year of marriage, the allegation of dowry harassment may be accepted to
some extent. However, the evidence also indicates that Rasila herself
displayed obstinate behaviour, which at times contributed to disturbances
in her marital home. It is also clear that the deceased and accused No. 1
were living together at Bhavnagar as husband and wife. Although one
witness stated that the accused had beaten Rasila, the majority of the
evidence indicates that the relationship between accused No. 1 and Rasila
was not entirely strained. They were living together even at the time of
the incident. It also appears that their children were not residing with
them at the time of the occurrence. The prosecution has failed to
establish, through reliable evidence, that accused No. 3 and accused No. 4
were present in the house at the relevant time. From the evidence of the
complainant, it does not appear that accused Nos. 2 to 5 were staying in
the house where accused No. 1 and the deceased were residing at the time
of the occurrence. Although there may have been periods in the earlier
years of marriage when accused Nos. 2 to 5 lived intermittently or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
separately, such past circumstances cannot be relied upon to conclude
that they were present at the scene on the day of the incident.
12. Section 498A of IPC defines cruelty. The expression willful
conduct and harassment to coerce her are two important aspects
appearing in section 498A to decide that element of cruelty and
harassment. The sporadic incident of ill-treatment by husband or her
relatives does not fall within the expression of cruelty stated in clause (a)
and harassment in clause (b) with view to coerce her. The conduct of
accused i.e. her husband and /or near relatives must be wilful and there is
likelihood that such wilful conduct will result in committing suicide or
would be danger to life, limb or health of the woman.
13. In Indrasingh M. Raol v/s. State of Gujarat 1999(3) GLR 2536,
this Court has dened and explained the expression cruelty and harassment
in context to Sec.498A & 306 of the IPC. Relevant paragraph is para-6 &
7 which read as under :
"6. The expression "cruelty" means and implies harsh & harmful
conduct of certain intensity and persistence. It, therefore, covers the
acts causing both physical and mental agony and torture, or tyranny
and harm as well as unending accusations and recrimination
reflecting bitterness putting the victim thereof to intense miseries &
woes strongly stirring up her feeling that life is now not worth living
and she should die, being the only option left. The provision of Sec.
498A therefore, envisages intention to drag or force the woman to
commit suicide by unabetted, persistent & grave cruelty. In one case,
therefore, the facts on record may constitute the cruelty showing
required intention and in another case, it may not. The concept of
cruelty, therefore, is found different or diversifying from place to
place, individual to individual, and also according to social and
economical status of the person and several other factors. The Court
has, therefore, to becoming more heedful, chary & wary, exert and
ascertain the cruelty & required intention on the basis of materials
on record and also on the basis of the culture, ordinary
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
sentimentality or sensitivity, capacity to tolerate, temperament,
tendency, interse honour, matrimonial relationships, state of health,
dissension, interaction, or conflicting ideology, will to dominate,
utter disregard of one's own obligation or intractability or habits as
well as customs & traditions governing the parties and other
governing forces, provided necessary acceptable evidence in this
regard is available on record.
7. The word "harassment" is not defined in Sec. 498A. The meaning
of the word "harass" which can be found from the dictionary is to
subject someone to unbearable, continuous or repeated or persistent
unprovoked vexatious attacks, questions, demands, or persecutions,
or brutality, or tyranny, or harm, or pain, or affliction, or other
unpleasantness, or grave annoyance, or troubles. In short what can
be said is that Sec. 498A will not come into play in every case of
harassment and/or cruelty. Reasonable nexus between cruelty and
suicide must be established. It should, therefore, be shown that the
incessant harassment or cruelty was with a view to force the wife to
end her life or fulfil illegal demands of her husband or in-laws, and
was not matrimonial cruelty, namely usual wear and tear of
matrimonial life. It should hardly be stated that the prosecution has
to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. No doubt
arithmetical accuracy is not expected from the prosecution, but it has
to adduce such evidence which would be credible leaving no room to
any reasonable doubt; and pointing to the guilt of the accused."
14. In Manju Ram K a l i t a v. State of Assam , (2009) 13 SCC
330, Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the meaning of Cruelty in
paragraph No.22 in following terms:-
"Cruelty for the purpose of section 498A, IPC is to be established in
the context of sec.498A, IPC as it may be different from other
statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering
the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity of seriousness of his
acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide, etc. it is to be established that the woman has been
subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or atleast in close
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be
termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of sec.498A, IPC. Causing
mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be
termed as cruelty."
15. In earlier decision in the case of V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat, AIR 1994
SC 710 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to word cruelty has ob-
served following:-
"The context and the setup in which the word cruelty has been used in
the section, seems, that intention is not a necessary element in
cruelty. That word has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the
term in matrimonial affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt
could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act
complained of, cruelty could be easily established. But the absence of
intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary
sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be
regarded as cruelty."
16. The cruelty therefore has to be understood in its ordinary sense of
the matrimonial terms, yet general wear and tear of matrimonial life or
vague allegations having no mentioning of specific incident of demand of
dowry by the accused or hostile attitude of husband and/or his relatives
cannot be termed as cruelty. Differences arising, momentarily between
husband and wife also cannot be construed as cruelty or harassment. In
order to establish and prove cruelty as stated in section 498A of the IPC,
it must be in nature that it is arising from wilful conduct and it is intended
to harm, harass or hurt the victim.
17. In the background of above law if we re-examine the evidence on
record, what appears that no specific incident of cruelty or wilful conduct
of the accused are narrated by any of the witnesses with unassailable cor-
roboration.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
18. Insofar as offence in relation to section 306 with section 107 of
IPC is concerned, the said provisions indicates that there must be some
nexus between suicide of the victim and alleged offensive acts of the ac-
cused. In other words, prosecution is required to prove offensive acts of
accused, which drive deceased to commit suicide. In addition thereto,
there should be proximity of offensive acts, which led deceased to com-
mit suicide. In the case of Wazir Chand vs. State [AIR 1989 SC 378],
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Reading sections 306 and 107 together, it is clear that if any person
instigates any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such
instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the
instigation is liable to be punished under section 306 for abetting the
commission of suicide. A plain reading of the provisions shows that
before a person can be convicted of abetting the suicide of any other
person, it must be established that such other person committed
suicide."
19. When offence of 498A is added with offence of section 306 of IPC
prosecution is obliged to prove that cruelty was meted out to the deceased
being result of wilful conduct of accused and same has driven deceased
to commit suicide. Prosecution is also burdened to prove proximity and/
or nexus between cruelty and act of suicide. The stray domestic quarrels
perfunctory abuses by husband or in- laws are common in Indian society.
Crude and uncultured behaviour by the husband towards his wife being
mundane would not form and constitute abetment unless these acts or
conduct singly or cumulatively are found to be of such formidable and
compelling nature as may lead to commission of suicide. Abetment is
mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person
in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
to instigate or aid in committing suicide, accused cannot be convicted
under section 306 of IPC.
20. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh [2001 9 SCC 618]
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed regarding instigation as under:-
"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. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said
to be instigation.
4.1 Close reading of evidence on record does not indicate any in-
stigation on the part of the accused which driven the deceased to com-
mit suicide. There is no active role played by the accused which is
proved by the prosecution which may establish instigation or abet-
ment for committing suicide."
21. It is important to note that though the deceased consumed poi-
sonous substance; but evidence so produced by the prosecution does not
link the accused to such an act of the deceased of consumption of poi-
sonous substance and evidence was uncorroborated by independent wit-
nesses. This is evidence produced by the prosecution itself, but lacks vol-
untariness certification. In the instant case learned APP could not able to
point out that how the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Court is
patently illegal, perverse or contrary to the material on record or against
the settled principles of law or his palpably wrong or manifestly erro-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
neous. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against the
recording of acquittal of the accused deserves no merit.
22. The incident that immediately preceded the deceased consuming
poison was trivial and formed part of the ordinary wear and tear of matri-
monial life. Hurt by such incident, she might have consumed poisonous
substance; but by any stretch of imagination, be construed as wilful con-
duct of such nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide
within the meaning of the Explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC, nor does
it constitute harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to
meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security under clause
(b) thereof. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove cruelty within the
meaning of Section 498-A IPC. Apart from the solitary incident as
emerging from the evidence on record, no specific instance of physical or
mental cruelty has been established through any independent or corrobo-
rative evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has committed serious error
of law recording conviction of the org. accused No.1 under Section 498-
A of the IPC in the absence of proof of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
Even otherwise, the material on record does not disclose any active insti-
gation, intentional aiding or engagement in a conspiracy by any of the ac-
cused that directly led the deceased to commit suicide (Section 107 IPC).
The act of the deceased in consuming poison appears to be a spontaneous
reaction born out of her own sensitivity rather than any positive act of
abetment on the part of the accused persons. Mere hurt feelings aris-
ing from a trivial domestic disagreement do not constitute abetment
of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The reasons stated herein above indi-
cate that the learned Sessions Judge has committed serious error in
recording the conviction of the org. accused No.1.
23. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, the private parties i.e. org.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
accused side and org. complainant side have arrived at an amicable settle-
ment between them and as stated and contended by learned advocate for
the org. accused No.1 affidavit has been filed on behalf of the brother and
sister of the deceased that they have no objection if the order of convic-
tion and sentence is set aside or in the alternate the sentence undergone
by the accused may be ordered to be confirmed as already undergone, as
also the judgment and order of acquittal recorded in favour of other ac-
cused may also be not disturb.
24. At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, re-
striction or condition on exercise of such power and an appel-
late court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclu-
sion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling
reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong cir-
cumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes",
etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appel-
late court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies
are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to empha-
sise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with ac-
quittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evi-
dence 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 ac-
cused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his in-
nocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb
the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
25. In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
[(2023) 9 SCC 581] the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the princi-
ples 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 pre-
sumption 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 ac-
quittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to con-
sider 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 an-
other view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquit-
tal 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/603/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
26. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons
recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that the case
of the prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by
the learned Sessions Court, Criminal Appeal No.603 of 2004 is filed by
the appellant - State of Gujarat is dismissed. Whereas the Criminal Ap-
peal No.298 of 2004 is preferred by the org. accused No.1 stands al-
lowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence convicting
original accused No.1 under Sections 498-A r/w sec.107 of the Indian
Penal Code is quashed and set aside. Bail Bond shall stand cancelled.
Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned
forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura
