[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Akrammiya Afjalmiya Shaikh on 15 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 02/04/2026
Pronounced On : 15/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1473 of 2012
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
AKRAMMIYA AFJALMIYA SHAIKH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.06.2012, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.20,
Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No.8 of 2012, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 Of the
Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has
preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial
before the trial Court is that the complainant/deceased
married with the respondent-accused, however, the
respondent-accused kept on suspecting the character of the
deceased and, the respondent-accused used give mental and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
physical torture to her and also deserted her from his house
and did not allow her to meet her children. Thus because of
the constant harassment at the hands of the respondent-
accused, which was unbearable, the deceased poured kerosene
over her and set herself ablaze. Thereby, the respondent-
accused has committed alleged offences and the complaint
was filed against the respondent/s-accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence
was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-
sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the
offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to
be registered as Sessions Case No.8 of 2012. The charge was
framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not
guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are
described in the impugned judgment as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
Oral Evidence
Sr.No. Exhibit Name of Witness Details
No.
1 5 Ruksanabanu Babubhai Sister of the
Mansuri deceased
2 7 Noormohammed Ismailbhai Panch witness
Saiyed
3 10 Moinuddin Kasimbhai Saiyad Panch witness
4 11 Dr.Digvijay Ranchhodbhai Postmortem
Vaghela Doctor
5 14 Mohammad Ishaq Mehbubbhai Father of the
Sheikh deceased
6 16 Kamrunisha Mohammad Ishaq Mother of the
Shaikh deceased
7 17 Savitaben Ashokbhai Vaghela Executive
Magistrate
8 21 Gauribegum Ismailbhai Saiyad witness
9 22 Amirullakhan Sarfarazkhan Officer who
Pathan had taken
the complaint
10 30 Jesingbhai Mothibhai Jadav Officer who
had taken
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
vardhi
11 33 Mahendrabhai Muljibhai Officer who
Makwana had filed
charge-sheet
Documentary Evidence
Sr.N Exhibit Details
o. No.
1 6 Inquest Panchnama.
2 8 Panchnama of the place of offence
3 12 Postmortem Report
4 13 Death certificate
5 14 Receipt of handing over the dead body
6 18 Letter to conduct Dyeing Declaration
7 19 Dyeing Declaration
8 23 complaint
9 24 Report of the Officer-in-Charge.
10 25 Vardhi of VS Hospital
11 26 Letter written to FSL officer with report to
arrive at the place of offence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
12 27 Dispatch Note
13 28 Receipt of FSL
14 29 Report on the addition of Section-306 of the
Indian Penal Code
15 31 Vardhi of VS Hospital
16 32 Report to PSO regarding filing of accidental
death
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis
of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial
Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the
charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has
pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court
through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before
the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and
perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in
acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial
Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the
contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the
accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that
the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It
is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen
that the evidence produced on record is reliable and
believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,
therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by
appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the
respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by
the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned
trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal
by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and
dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
the Court :
8.1. The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint filed
by the deceased, which has been produced vide exhibit-23,
wherein the deceased states that she is residing at her
maternal aunt's house and since two years, she has been
staying separately from her in-laws. It is also stated in the
said complaint that the parents of the deceased are staying
next to the deceased and on 29-09-2011, as the accused used
to suspect the character of the deceased and time and again
used to harass the deceased and used to mentally cause
cruelty on the deceased and it is the case of the prosecution
that before seven months from the date of incident, as there
was a dispute, the accused had gone to reside with his
parents and had taken the children of the deceased with him
and before two months from the date of incident, the accused
had refused to take the deceased with him and time and
again, the deceased used to try to explain the accused to
settle the dispute, but the accused used to doubt the
character of the deceased and did not permit the deceased to
meet her children and therefore, because of the said reason,
deceased poured kerosene on herself, for the aforesaid reason
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
of mental harassment by the accused and the deceased was
admitted in hospital. The incident had taken place on
29.09.2011 and the deceased died on 11.10.2011.
8.2. The Yadi was sent to the Executive Magistrate, which is
produced vide exhibit-18 for taking the dying declaration. The
said Yadi also states that the patient (deceased)is conscious
and the same is signed on 29.09.2011 at 01.25 p.m. The fact
remains that the person who has signed the said Yadi has
not been examined by the prosecution.
8.3. The dying declaration is produced vide exhibit 19 and
the said dying declaration states that the dying declaration
had started at 16:00 hours on 29.09.2011. There is no report
in the said dying declaration that at the start of taking the
dying declaration, the deceased was fit to give statement. If
the said dying declaration is taken into consideration, in the
dying declaration, she has stated that her husband used to
harass her and used to suspect her and therefore, she had
poured kerosene on herself in view of the fact that the
accused had taken her three children with him and was not
ready to take the deceased with him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
8.4. In the note after the dying declaration as per the
opinion of the doctor, it has been stated that the deceased
was conscious. Thus, there is also an endorsement in the
said dying declaration of the fact that the deceased was
conscious and that the said dying declaration ended at 16.15
hours. But the said Doctor who has signed the endorsement
has not been examined by the prosecution.
8.5. The sister of the deceased, Rukhsanaben Mansuri, who is
also the panch witness of the inquest Panchanama, which
has been produced vide exhibit-6, has been examined as
P.W.1 vide exhibit-5, who has turned hostile and has not
supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has
produced the Panchanama of scene of offence vide exhibit-8,
the inquest Panchanama is produced vide ehibit-6 and the
Panchanama of recovery of muddamal has been produced vide
exhibit-9 and the panch witness P.W.2, Noor Mohammed
Ismailbhai Saiyad has been examined as P.W.2 vide exhibit-7,
who has turned hostile and has not supported the case of
the prosecution.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
8.6. The prosecution has examined Moinuddin Kasimbhai
Shaikh as P.W.3 vide exhibit-10, who was the panch witness
of the recovery of muddamal, produced by vide exhibit-9 and
scene of offence vide exhibit-8. He has turned hostile and has
not supported the case of the prosecution.
8.7. The prosecution has examined Dr.Digvijay Vaghela vide
exhibit-11 as P.W.4, who had conducted the postmortem and
the postmortem report is produced vide exhibit-12. The cause
of death as stated in the postmortem report is shock as a
result of burns and its complications.
8.8. The father of the deceased Mohammedishaq Mehboobbhai
Shaikh has been examined as P.W.5 vide exhibit 14. He has
turned hostile and has not supported the case of the
prosecution. If his evidence is taken into consideration, in his
deposition, he has categorically stated that when he reached
the hospital, the deceased was not conscious and when she
was asked about the incident, she had not stated anything.
He has also stated that he does not know the reason as to
why the deceased had committed suicide. It has also been
stated that the deceased used to stay separately. She has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
never stated that the accused used to doubt her character.
8.9. He has also stated that the deceased was short tempered
and the relation between the deceased and the accused was
coordial and the accused did not harass the deceased.
8.10. The prosecution has thereafter examined the mother of
the deceased Kamrunish Mohammedishaq Shaikh as P.W.6
vide exhibit-16. She has also turned hostile and has not
supported the case of the prosecution. She has categorically
stated that, it is not true that the accused used to have
doubt on the deceased and there was any harassment of the
accused on the deceased.
8.11. The Executive Magistrate Savitaben Vaghela has been
examined as P.W.7 vide exhibit-17. In her deposition, she has
stated that the doctor had informed her that the patient was
conscious and the said doctor had made an endorsement that
the deceased was conscious. She has also admitted the fact
that when the questions were asked to the deceased while
taking the dying declaration, she was partially unconscious.
She has also admitted that she had not asked whether the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
deceased had studied in Hindi or Gujarati medium school.
She has also admitted that at page no.2 of the dying
declaration, where the time has been mentioned as 16.15
hours has been scribbled and in the Xerox copy, it was
mentioned 17.15 hours.
8.12. The neighbour who was residing near the parental
house of the deceased, Gauribegum Ismailbhai Saiyad has
been examined as P.W.8 vide exhibit-21. She has turned
hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
8.13. The Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.9 -
Amirullahkhan Sarfarazkhan Pathan vide exhibit-22. He has
also stated that at the time when the statement was to be
taken, there is no endorsement of any medical officer that
the deceased was fit to give deposition.
8.14. The ASI-Dani Limda Police Station- Jesinghbhai
Motibhai Jadhav has been examined as P.W.10 vide exhibit-
30. The Investigating Officer Mahendrabhai Muljibhai
Makwana has been examined as P.W.11 vide exhibit-33. The
communication by ASI-Dani Limda Police Station to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
F.S.L. officer is produced vide exhibit 26 and the F.S.L.
report is produced vide exhibit 27.
8.15. If the entire case is taken into consideration, the
witnesses of the prosecution who are family members of the
deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution and
they have turned hostile. The father of the deceased himself
has stated that the deceased was short tempered and the
relation between the deceased and the accused was cordial. It
also transpired that, if the accused was not permitting the
deceased to meet the children of the deceased and the
accused, there is no application or complaint before the Court
or the Police Station for the same that has been filed by the
deceased during her lifetime.
8.16. The Executive Magistrate himself has also stated that,
when he had taken the dying declaration, the patient was
partially unconscious. The parents of the deceased who have
been examined as P.W.5 and P.W.6 have stated that the
deceased, after she was admitted to the hospital, was not in
a position to speak, the P.W.6 specifically states that the
deceased was unconscious and was not in a position to speak.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
The prosecution has failed to prove, even from the evidence
of the neighbours, that there was any dispute between the
deceased and the accused. If the dying declaration is taken
into consideration, the medical document states that the
patient had 96% burn injury.
8.17. Moreover, it also transpired that in the Yadi produced
vide exhibit 18, it has been stated that the patient was
conscious at 01.25 hours and the dying declaration has
started at 14.00 hours.
8.18. The doctor who had opined that the patient was
conscious at 01.25 pm, which has been noted in exhibit 18,
has not been examined, nor the doctor who has opined that
the patient is conscious in the dying declaration produced
vide exhibit-19 has not been examined.
8.19. The Executive Magistrate has also stated that he had
relied on the opinion given by the said doctor. It also
transpired that at the time of starting of the dying
declaration at 16.00 hours, there is neither any statement by
the Executive Magistrate or any opinion of the Doctor that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
the deceased was fit and conscious to give statement.
Moreover, it also transpired that there is an alteration in the
timing of the dying declaration, whereas at exhibit 4/6, i.e.
the carbon copy, the timing is 17.15 hours and in exhibit-19,
i.e. the original dying declaration, the timing is stated to be
16.15 hours. Even from the police investigation, the police
has not been able to prove any offence against the accused
under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
9.1 The evidence on record and the glaring omission
on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of
doubt that the order passed by the trial Court is as per law.
The trial Court has rightly held that there was no positive
evidence on record to prove that the accused by way of the
conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually aided
and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner
that it leaves no other option for the deceased but to commit
suicide. In the present case, the prosecution has also not
been able to prove the clear motive of the accused to commit
offence of abatement. There is also no close connection
between the accused's action and the deceased's choice to
commit suicide. In view of the said fact, the prosecution has
not been able to prove that the accused have stimulated the
deceased to commit suicide.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
9.2 The prosecution has not proved that there was a
clear motive to commit the offence of abatement. The
prosecution has also not proved that the accused proceeded to
encourage and/or irritate the deceased through words or
insults and that the accused intended to urge the deceased to
end it all by committing suicide. The prosecution has also
not been able to prove the direct connection between the
incitement and committal of suicide. The prosecution has also
not been able to prove direct or indirect act of incitement to
the commitment of suicide. The prosecution has also not been
able to prove by accusation of harassment without any
positive action on the part of the accused close to the time
of occurrence that led and forced the deceased to commit
suicide.
9.3 The present matter turns on whether the conduct
attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of
abetment of suicide. Therefore, read as a whole, it can be
said that mere occurrence of a suicide does not automatically
trigger rigours of the Section. The penal consequences under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code arise when the
prosecution is able to establish that the accused abetted and
had a role in provoking or facilitating that suicide. Therefore,
this twin test distinction is required to be borne in mind.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
9.4 Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence,
is not a broad moral expression but a term of precise
statutory meaning. Section 107 IPC delineates its contours:
instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. Each of these
modes presupposes active involvement. The law does not
punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional
encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.
9.5 It is therefore not sufficient to show that the
deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant
treatment. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has consistently underscored that routine
domestic disagreements, suspicion between spouses, or
episodes of harassment do not ipso facto amount to
instigation. Rigours of this Section intervene only where there
is clear evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link
between the accused's conduct and the decision of the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.6 The concept of instigation demands something more
than mere reproach or accusation. It connotes an active
suggestion, an incitement, or conduct of such intensity that it
operates upon the mind of the victim and pushes him or her
toward this drastic and unfortunate step. The prosecution
therefore, must demonstrate either a deliberate intention to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct
in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally
indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists
on a live and immediate nexus between the acts complained
of and the suicide. A remote or generalized allegation is
insufficient. There must be evidence showing that the accused
engaged in conduct so closely connected in time and effect
with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to have
triggered the fatal act.
9.7 No material has been brought on record
demonstrating any proximate act immediately preceding the
suicide which could be construed as instigation. Nor is there
evidence of a positive act amounting to intentional aid. The
essential ingredients of abetment -namely, culpable mental
state coupled with active or proximate conduct-are not
established.
9.8 On an overall assessment of the evidence, the
prosecution has failed to demonstrate the existence of the
foundational elements necessary to sustain a conviction under
Section 306 IPC.
10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment
lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional
doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. 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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.
10.1 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations
are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been
held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section
306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission
of said offence, person who is said to have abetted
commission of suicide must have played active role by act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of
suicide. It has been further observed that the act of
abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved
and established by prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or
by a continued course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that deceased was left with no other option,
except to commit suicide.
10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus
State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has been held
that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
proof of direct or indirect act(s) 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 deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms
of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.
10.3 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020)
15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306
and 107 of IPC, the Court held that conviction under Section
306 IPC is not sustainable 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.
10.4 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244,
it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
part of the accused proximate to the date on which the
deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not
only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be
of such a nature that the deceased was left with no
alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.
11. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show
any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that
the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest
illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court
below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above
view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Court below was completely justified in passing
impugned judgment and order.
12. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial
Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence
connecting the accused with the incident and there are
contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that
the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive
of the accused behind the incident is not established. The
trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record
and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has
rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the
judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija
Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the
view of the trial court on the evidence to
repeat the narration of the evidence or to
reiterate the reasons given by the trial
court expression of general agreement with
the reasons given by the Court the decision
of which is under appeal, will ordinarily
suffice."
14. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the
reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the
discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal
from order of acquittal to reassess the
evidence and reach its own conclusions
under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as
extensive as in any appeal against the order
of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it
is desirable that the High Court should give
proper weight and consideration to the view
of the Trial Court with regard to the
credibility of the witness, the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused, the right
of the accused to the benefit of any doubt
and the slowness of appellate Court in
justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a
Judge who had the advantage of seeing the
witness. It is settled law that if the main
grounds on which the lower Court has
based its order acquitting the accused are
reasonable and plausible, and the same
cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged
or demolished, the High Court should not
disturb the order of acquittal."
16. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing
with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial
Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.
It is further observed that High Court's interference in such
appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by
the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court
should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the
belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have
taken a different view.
17. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general
principles regarding powers of the appellate
court while dealing with an appeal against
an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
(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
principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in
the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s
State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held
in paragraph 24 as under:
"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled
legal position that the interference with the
finding of acquittal recorded by the learned
trial Judge would be warranted by the High
Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers
from patent perversity; that the same is based
on a misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and that no two
reasonable views are possible and only the
view consistent with the guilt of the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1473/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
is possible from the evidence available on
record."
19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the
case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I
found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the
findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under
the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly
acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons
stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the
view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the
acquittal.
21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same
deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record
& Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
