[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Suminbhai Jatrubhai Mahla on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 01/04/2026
Pronounced On : 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 384 of 2012
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SUMINBHAI JATRUBHAI MAHLA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.09.2011, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari camp at
Vansda, in Sessions Case No.48 of 2010, for the offences
punishable under Sections 306 and 114 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 death of a deceased woman
who had been living with her husband and in-laws for about
seven years occurred at her matrimonial home. It is alleged
that the accused persons, including her husband, used to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
quarrel with her, beat her, and harass her by not providing
proper food, and that the husband was also habituated to
consuming liquor. The deceased had informed her parental
family about this harassment, but was sent back with an
assurance that she would not be ill-treated in future. Despite
this, the harassment allegedly continued. On 09.10.2009, while
the complainant was away for work, he received information
from a villager that his daughter had sustained burn injuries
and had been admitted to the hospital. Subsequently, she
died due to the burn injuries, allegedly after being subjected
to cruelty and harassment, which led her to commit suicide.
The complaint with this regard was accordingly filed.
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.48 of 2010. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are
described in the impugned judgment as under:
Oral Evidence
Exhibit
No. Witness Name
No.
Chhaniben Pannalal Yadav
(Complainant)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Documentary Evidence
Exhibit
No. Document Description
No.
Panchnama of the physical condition (of the
body)
3 Panchnama of articles seized from the scene 11
14 List written for taking D.D. (Dying Declaration) 37
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Exhibit
No. Document Description
No.
18 Letter from Deputy Police Officer, Navsari 43
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
ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the
accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
the Court :
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
8.1. Upon perusal of the complaint produced at Exhibit 19,
the complainant, being the mother of the deceased
Sangeetaben, has stated that her daughter was subjected
to continuous physical and mental cruelty by Accused No.
1 (husband), who was addicted to alcohol and used to
assault her under its influence, as well as by Accused
Nos. 2 and 3 (in-laws), who also quarrelled with her and
deprived her of food. On 18.09.2009, the deceased returned
to her parental home after being assaulted and driven out;
however, upon assurance by Accused No. 1 and his
relative Kantubhai that she would not be harassed further,
she was sent back. Prior to leaving, the deceased
expressed that she would take her own life if subjected to
further harassment. Thereafter, on 09.10.2009, the
complainant was informed that her daughter had sustained
burn injuries and had been admitted to Vansda Cottage
Hospital. Upon inquiry, the deceased stated that on the
previous night, her husband, under the influence of
alcohol, had abused and driven her out, and that her in-
laws had supported such conduct, due to which, being
unable to bear the continued harassment, she poured
kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. During
treatment, after approximately three days, she succumbed
to her injuries. At the time the police had recorded the
complainant's statement, wherein the complainant had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
stated that she would file a complaint if deemed
appropriate. Thereafter, with regard to the maintenance of
the deceased Sangeeta's two minor children, a settlement
was arrived at in the presence of the Sarpanch of village
Vangan, the Sarpanch of Jooj village, and other community
leaders, and a written agreement to that effect was
executed between the parties. However, the accused
persons failed to comply with the terms of the said
agreement. Thus, as the accused persons had, by
subjecting the complainant's daughter to cruelty, abetted
her to commit suicide, the complainant lodged the present
complaint against the accused at Vansda Police Station on
22.07.2010.
8.2. When the victim, Sangeetaben, was taken to Vansda
Hospital, she was treated by Dr. Arvindbhai Chaudhary,
who has been examined at Exhibit 31. In his deposition,
he stated that on 09.10.2009, while he was serving as a
Medical Officer at Cottage Hospital, Vansda, at about
14:05 hours, the patient Sangeetaben was brought for
treatment by her husband, Sumanbhai. Upon inquiry, the
patient stated that she had poured kerosene over her body
and set herself on fire. The doctor has further deposed
that, as per the history given by the patient, she had
sustained burn injuries due to pouring kerosene and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
igniting herself, and that she had suffered approximately
85% to 86% burn injuries over her body. The said witness
has further deposed that on 10.10.2009, at about 08:00
a.m., the patient was referred to Navsari Civil Hospital
and was accordingly shifted there by ambulance. However,
in the cross-examination, no material has emerged to show
that Sangeetaben was taken to Civil Hospital, Navsari; on
the contrary, it has come on record that she was taken to
Civil Hospital, Valsad.
8.3. It also transpires that if the Yadi which is produced
vide exhibit-22 is taken into consideration, the said Yadi
was sent to the Executive Magistrate who has been
examined as P.W.7 vide exhibit 20-Hasmukhbhai Lad and
said yadi states that the patient is conscious and the
same is stated to be signed by one person name
Mr.A.R.Patel but the said person who has opined that the
patient is conscious has not been examined. The said
endorsement by Mr.A.R.Patel is also on 09.10.2009, below
exhibit-22 and the timing that has been stated that the
patient is conscious is stated to be 06.50 hours. If the
dying declaration produced vide exhibit-23 is taken into
consideration, the dying declaration had started at 18:50
hours and had ended at 19.30 hours. The said dying
declaration also does not state that the Executive
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Magistrate has after considering the opinion of the doctor
and /or as per his own opinion, he has opined that the
said patient is fit to give the dying declaration. In the
cross-examination when the question was asked to the said
Executive Magistrate, that who had opined that the
patient was conscious below exhibit 22, he stated that he
is not in a position to state the full name of the said
person, but the name has been stated by the person who
had signed the said endorsement and the said fact can
only be stated by a doctor is the reply that the said
Executive Magistrate has given.
8.4. The prosecution has thereafter examined
Dr.Santoshkumar Adhikari as P.W.8 vide exhibit 25, he
has conducted the postmortem. The postmortem report is
produced vide exhibit-26. The cause of death was cardio-
respiratory failure caused by 86 to 90 percent burn.
8.5. Thereafter, prosecution witness Somabhai Bhoya was
examined at Exhibit 17. In his deposition on oath, he has
stated that he knows the accused and that Accused
Sumanbhai was married to Sangeeta. He further deposed
that when he had gone to the place of incident upon
learning about the occurrence, he saw that Sangeetaben
had sustained approximately 95% burn injuries. He stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
that he had called for an ambulance and ensured that she
was taken to the hospital for treatment. He has further
stated that Sangeetaben was not in a condition to speak
and had been kept on oxygen support in the hospital. He
has also deposed that he had no knowledge as to how
Sangeetaben had sustained such burn injuries. In cross-
examination, the said witness has admitted that the
deceased was of a sensitive nature and would easily feel
hurt if anything was said to her. It has been stated that
Sangeetaben was leading a harmonious matrimonial life
with her husband, and that there was no discord between
Sangeetaben and the accused. Thus, from the testimony of
this witness, no incriminating evidence against the accused
persons emerges.
8.6. The mother of the deceased Sangeetaben, namely the
complainant, Chhaniben Yadav, has been examined at
Exhibit 18. The mother of the deceased has stated that
the said information was received by her from one
Mansukhbhai, the said Mansukhbhai has not been
examined by the prosecution. The said witness has also
stated that he along with his daughter Premila had gone
to the hospital and said daughter Premilaben has also not
been examined by the prosecution. In her examination-in-
chief on oath, she initially stated that the deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Sangeetaben was her daughter and that Sangeetaben was
married to Accused No. 1, Sumanbhai. She has further
deposed that Sangeetaben died due to burn injuries;
however, she has stated that she is not aware as to how
Sangeetaben sustained such burns. She has further
deposed that when she visited the hospital, Sangeetaben
had sustained extensive burn injuries. Thereafter, she
stated that Sangeetaben had informed her that she had
been subjected to harassment, including being deprived of
food for three days, and that her mother-in-law had also
quarreled with her. She further stated that Sangeetaben
had told her that on the day of the incident, she had
woken up at about 5:00 a.m. with the intention of going
to her parental home along with her two children;
however, her husband did not permit her to do so. She
has also deposed that Sangeetaben remained alive in the
hospital for about four days and thereafter succumbed to
her injuries. After her death, the deceased was cremated
in accordance with customary rites, and even after
completion of the funeral ceremonies, the complainant did
not initiate any proceedings. Thereafter, the complainant
was declared hostile. In cross-examination, the complainant
has made a material admission that the complaint was
lodged due to financial difficulties. The prosecution has
categorically stated that she had filed the complaint, she
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
has stated that though the incident had taken place on
09.10.2009 and the deceased expired on 13.10.2009, the
complaint has been filed on 22.07.2010, only as the
accused were not ready to pay the amount of maintenance,
which was assured and promised by the accused.
8.7. The complainant's husband, witness Pannalal Yadav,
has been examined at Exhibit 34. In his deposition, he
has stated that Sangeetaben was facing difficulties with
respect to food and sustenance, on account of which she
sustained burn injuries. He has further stated that her
mother-in-law and father-in-law used to trouble her
regarding food; however, Accused No. 1, Somanbhai, used
to treat Sangeetaben properly. He has also deposed that,
in connection with the death of Sangeetaben, a complaint
was submitted to the Mamlatdar, but no complaint was
lodged before the police. Thus, from the testimony of this
witness, no incriminating material against the accused
emerges, and it is indicated that the husband of the
deceased was treating her well. Thus, as this witness did
not support the case of the prosecution, he was declared
hostile.
8.8. The Executive Magistrate, Shri Hasmukhbhai Lad,
who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
been examined at Exhibit 20. In his examination-in-chief,
he has deposed that upon ascertaining that the patient
was conscious, he immediately interacted with her, stating
that no time ought to be wasted. Upon being informed
that the patient had regained consciousness, he commenced
recording the dying declaration. He further stated that, as
per the printed format, he put questions to the patient
and recorded her answers accordingly as they were given.
8.9. The dying declaration of the deceased has been
produced at Exhibit 23. In the dying declaration, the
deceased stated that her husband used to quarrel with her
daily under the influence of alcohol and would compel her
to go to her parental home. She further stated that her
father-in-law and mother-in-law also used to quarrel with
her while under the influence of alcohol. She deposed that,
being unable to bear such daily harassment, she was
compelled to take the extreme step of self-immolation.
8.10. In cross-examination, the said witness has admitted
that, prior to recording a dying declaration, it is customary
to obtain an endorsement from a medical officer certifying
whether the patient is in a fit mental and physical
condition to give a statement. He has further stated that
if such an endorsement is already present on the yadi, a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
separate certification is not necessary. He has admitted
that the PSO had obtained such an endorsement on
Exhibit 22, and relying upon the same as a medical
certification, he proceeded to record the dying declaration.
He has further stated that his action was based upon the
requisition at Exhibit 22. The witness has admitted that
although Exhibit 22 bears the signature and endorsement
of the doctor, the same does not contain the official seal
or stamp of the hospital, nor does it mention the
designation of the doctor beneath the signature. The
witness has further admitted that, at the time of recording
a dying declaration, it is necessary to obtain a certification
from a medical expert regarding the mental and physical
condition of the patient; however, despite being aware of
this requirement, he did not obtain such certification in
the present case.
8.11. Moreover, as per the deposition of Dr. Arvindbhai,
the victim was referred to Navsari Civil Hospital on
09/10/2009 at about 20:00 hours and was sent there by
ambulance. However, as per the dying declaration at
Exhibit 23, the statement of the victim was recorded at
Valsad at 19:30 hours on the same day, i.e., 09/10/2009. If
the victim, Sangeetaben, was present at Vansda Hospital
until 20:00 hours on that day, it remains unexplained as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
to how her dying declaration could have been recorded at
Valsad at 19:30 hours. No clarification in this regard has
been provided by the prosecution. Thus, this fact makes
the dying declaration suspicious.
8.12. The panchnama of the arrest of the accused and the
panchnama of the place of occurrence have been produced
on record. Upon perusal of the same, it appears that in
the dying declaration at Exhibit 23, the victim has stated
that she poured kerosene from a primus stove and set
herself on fire; however, the panchnama does not disclose
the presence of any such primus at the place of
occurrence. As per the FSL report, it is stated that a
smell of kerosene was emanating from a plastic container
found at the scene. In view of this, the version given by
the victim in the dying declaration regarding the use of a
primus is not corroborated by the panchnama of the place
of occurrence.
8.13. Further, no independent witnesses from the
neighborhood have come forward to support the case of the
complainant. Further, the father of the victim, Pannalal,
has also not supported the case of the complainant, and
the testimonies of the complainant and witness Pannalal
are found to be contradictory.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
8.14 The prosecution has also not been able to prove the
person who had endorsed that the patient was conscious
below exhibit 22. In view of the said fact, the dying
declaration also cannot be taken into consideration to
prove the case of the prosecution against the accused.
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.
9.2 The prosecution has not proved that there was a
clear motive to commit the offence of abatement. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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.
9.4 Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence,
is not a broad moral expression but a term of precise
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct
in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment
lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or
by a continued course of conduct should have created such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
part of the accused proximate to the date on which the
deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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.
13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
"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
case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts
no limitation, restriction or condition on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
is possible from the evidence available on
record."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/384/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
