[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Gaurishankar Govindbhai Pandya on 11 March, 2026

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                        R/CR.A/1266/2009                                              CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                                                                  Reserved On   : 26/02/2026
                                                                                  Pronounced On : 11/03/2026

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                           R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1266 of 2009

                      ==========================================================
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                      Versus
                                      GAURISHANKAR GOVINDBHAI PANDYA & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR MANISH R RAVAL(1250) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
                      1,2,3,4,5,6
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                          CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.04.2009 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge (Chief Court) Gandhinagar in

Sessions Case No.78 of 2008 for the offences punishable

under Sections 306, 498(A) 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 complainant Dineshbhai

Shrimali lodged a complaint on 11.01.2008 stating that his

daughter Archana, who had married accused Gaurishankar

Pandya about twelve years earlier as per caste custom, was

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

continuously harassed by her husband and in-laws--Ratanben,

Manojbhai, and Pravinaben through taunts, dowry demands,

and mental and physical cruelty. Archana, who had two

children, had repeatedly informed her father and his sister

Bhanuben about the increasing harassment, the accused

demanding money for purchasing a house, and even beating

her, threatening her by saying "if you want to die, you die,

we will release him." Despite the complainant persuading her

repeatedly to continue the marriage for the sake of the

children, the harassment intensified; she had once been

driven out, filed a maintenance case, and the complainant

had also paid Rs.50,000/- to respondents Dahyabhai and

Jagdishbhai to secure the release of his son-in-law in a

separate rape case. On 11.01.2008, the complainant received a

call from a relative informing him that Archana had committed suicide by hanging. On reaching the matrimonial

home at Chandkheda, the complainant saw Archana dead,

therefore, 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to

be registered as Sessions Case No.78 of 2008. 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

has examined 9 witnesses and also produced 12 documentary

evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment.

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/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court :

8.1. The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint filed

by the complainant which is produced vide Exhibit 25, the

said complaint is filed by the father of the deceased. In the

said complaint, it has been stated that for trivial issues, the

accused used to taunt the daughter and the said fact was

informed by the deceased to the complainant and the

complainant used to tell the daughter that all will be well at

her matrimonial home and it has been stated that the

marriage span of the deceased and the accused no.1 was of

12 years, at the time of the incident and after 8 years of

the marriage, the accused used to demand dowry from the

deceased and used to physically and mentally harass the deceased and demand dowry from the deceased and the

deceased was brought to her parental house and therefore

maintenance application was filed.

8.2. It has also been alleged in the said complaint which is

produced vide exhibit-25 that the accused no.1 was involved

in a rape case and at that point of time, an amount of

Rs.50,000/- was given by the complainant to accused nos.5

and 6. It has also been stated that in view of the fact that

the deceased had two children and the fact that she may not

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

have any dispute in the matrimonial house, the elders of the

community had intervened before 12 months from the date of

the incident and thereafter the deceased was sent to her

matrimonial home, and even thereafter, the deceased used to

routinely call the complainant and complain about the

accused.

8.3. It has also been stated that just on the last Sunday,

before the date of incident, the sister of the complainant had

called the complainant and informed that the deceased had

come to her house and had informed sister-Bahnuben that

the accused are harassing her and are demanding money

from her and have started assaulting her and at that point

of time, the complainant thought that he will visit the

matrimonial home of the deceased during Uttarayan festival.

The prosecution has examined the complainant i.e. the father

of the deceased-Dineshbhai Shimali as PW-1 vide exhibit-22,

in his deposition, he has admitted that initial years of the

marriage of the deceased and accused no.1, there was no

dispute and thereafter, after five or six years of the

marriage, there were disputes between the deceased and the

accused and that an application under Section 125 of the

Criminal Procedure Code for Maintenance was filed by the

complainant in the Ahmedabad Family Court, which is

produced vide exhibit-23 and also, a complaint was filed

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

against the accused under Section 498(A), 506 and 114 of the

Criminal Procedure Code against accused no.1, 2, 3,, and

other family members, which was produced vide exhibit-24. In

the said deposition, the complainant also states that he had

given an amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused no.1 for getting

released when he was arrested in the offence of rape.

8.4. In his examination-in-chief, the said witness also states

that only before two days from the date of incident, the

deceased had gone to meet the complainant's sister Bhanuben

at Chandkheda. He has also admitted that the deceased was

only staying with accused no.1 and her children and that

accused no.4 was staying at Jivraj Park, since last three

years from the date of incident and accused no.6 was

working at District Banaskantha and the family was residing at Chandkheda and that accused no.1 did not have huge

income, and had started tuition classes. The said witness has

also admitted that there was a settlement which was arrived

at between the deceased and the accused in the matrimonial

proceedings i.e. file under Section 125 of the Criminal

Procedure Code and the proceedings filed under Sections-

498A, read with 506 and 114 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, the said settlement was produced vide exhibit-26. The

prosecution thereafter examined Manjulaben Shrimali who is

the mother of the deceased as P.W.2 vide exhibit-27. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

said witness in her deposition has categorically stated that it

was the desire of the deceased to purchase a property and

the accused were not agreeable that the deceased purchased

the house.

8.5. The prosecution has thereafter examined the brother of

the deceased-Nikul Shrimali as P.W.3 vide exhibit-28, the

said witness reiterates what has been stated by P.W.1 and

P.W.2 and states that just before two days prior to the date

of incident he had gone to the house of the deceased.

8.6. The prosecution has thereafter examined Dr.Gitanjali

Fukan, vide exhibit-30 as P.W.4 who had conducted the

postmortem report and the cause of death was pending till

the FSL report comes and the said doctor has in his deposition at paragraph no.4 stated that the deceased had

died due to stoppage of heart and as her breathing had

stopped due to the fact that she was found hanging.

8.7. The sister of the complainant has been examined vide

exhibit-34 as P.W.5, she is the witness, whom the

complainant states that, the deceased had gone just before

the last Sunday from the date of incident and had informed

her, that the deceased has been mentally and physically

harassed by the accused, but if the deposition of the said

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

witness is taken into consideration, the said witness states

that only that from the last four or five years, the relation

between the deceased and the accused was not good. She

also stated that the deceased had come on 06.01.2008 at

evening hours and had informed that the accused no.1 was

not doing any business and therefore they were facing

financial difficulty and therefore, the said witness should

come and scold accused no.1 and the said fact was informed

by the said witness to the complainant i.e. the father of the

deceased. The prosecution has thereafter examined the Police

Officer i.e. the Head Constable-Ishwar Desai vide exhibit-36

as P.W.6, the inquest panchnama is produced vide exhibit 12.

8.8. The prosecution has examined as P.W.7 Jayantibhai

Parsa vide exhibit-37 the I.O. The panchnama of scene of offence is produced vide exhibit-30. He in his deposition has

stated that he had taken statements of the neighbouring

persons Sureshbhai Chandubhai Patel, Jeevanbhai

Ganeshbhai, Kiritkumar Ramjibhai and in all the said

statements they have stated that there was no dispute

between the deceased and the accused no.1.

8.9. He has also stated that the deceased and the accused

were staying separately and the other accused, other than

accused no.1 wre not staying with the deceased at the time

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

of incident. He has also deposed that the statement of

Bhanuben Shrimali i.e. the sister of the complainant who has

been examined as P.W.5 has been taken on 14.01.2008 i.e.

after three days from the date of incident. The PSI

Shyamjibhai Ninama has been examined at exhibit-38 as

P.W.8. The other P.S.I. Babubhai Solanki has been examined

at exhibit-39 as P.W.9.

8.10. If the entire case of the prosecution is taken into

consideration, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact

that the deceased was mentally and physically harassed by

the accused.

8.11. Though the complainant in the complaint has stated

that, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was given by the complainant, with respect to the arrest of the accused no.1 in the rape

case, but if the application for maintenance which has been

filed by the deceased which is produced vide exhibit-23 is

taken into consideration, the said deceased in the said

application has stated that there was a false complaint filed

against the accused no.1 and for that during the bail

proceedings, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the

parents of the deceased. Therefore, in the said application

filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code also

the deceased does not state of payment of any amount of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

Rs.50,000/- that is alleged to have been paid by the

complainant.

8.12. Moreover, if the overall evidence of all the witnesses

are taken into consideration, it transpires that the accused

nos.2 to 6 have not been staying with the deceased at the

time when the alleged incident had taken place.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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.

9.4 Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

part of the accused proximate to the date on which the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

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

under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

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/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

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/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

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/1266/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

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