[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Jatin Gopalbhai Patel on 11 March, 2026

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.A/347/2008                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                             R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 347 of 2008


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER                                   Sd/
                      ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                        Yes           No
                                                                                              ✔
                      ==========================================================
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                           Versus
                                               JATIN GOPALBHAI PATEL & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
                      1,2,3,4,5,6,7
                      MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
                      1,2,3,4,5,6,7
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                          Date : 11/03/2026

                                                             JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.04.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.342 of 2006, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the Sessions Court is that the deceased, Anupama, was married to respondent-accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were her father-in- law and mother-in-law, Accused Nos.4 and 5 were her sisters-in- law, and Accused Nos.6 and 7 were her uncle-in-law and aunt-in- law. The deceased was residing with Accused Nos.1 to 5. It is alleged that the accused persons demanded dowry at the time of marriage and thereafter subjected the deceased to continuous physical and mental cruelty, including abusive taunts and assault by kicks and fist blows. With the alleged support of Accused Nos.6 and 7, the harassment reached an extreme level, due to which the deceased committed suicide. A complaint was lodged on 25.02.2006, before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, G- Division, Ahmedabad City, and was registered as I-82/2006.

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.342 of 2006. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

has examined 7 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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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 :

8.1. The prosecution has relied on the complaint filed

by the mother of the deceased which is produced by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

Exhibit-17 dated 25.02.2006, wherein it has been alleged that

the marriage span of the deceased and accused no.1 was 4

years at the time of the incident and during the first year of

marriage, there was no disturbance in the matrimonial life of

the deceased and accused no.1 and it has been alleged that

the accused no.1 was not doing any job or business and

therefore, was seeking money from the deceased and as the

complainant mother could not afford to financially assist the

deceased, the accused used to taunt and mentally and

physically harass the deceased. It has also been stated in the

complaint that before one year from the date of incident,

when the complainant had gone to the matrimonial home of

the deceased, there were some disputes with respect to

cleaning the utensils and at that point of time the deceased

was abused by the accused and was also physically assaulted by the accused and at that point of time, the complainant

had intervened and took the deceased with her to Vadodara

and kept her over there for around 20 days and thereafter,

accused no.7 had apologised and thereafter the deceased was

sent with accused no.1 to her matrimonial home at

Ahmedabad, It has also been alleged in the complaint that

on 28.01.2006, when the complainant had come to

Ahmedabad, the deceased had informed her, that even after

three years of marriage, the deceased could not conceive and

she was infertile and should leave the matrimonial home, but

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

the complainant intervened and the complainant did not bring

the deceased with her at Vadodara and it is only on

25.02.2006, that the complainant came to know that the

deceased had hanged herself. The prosecution has examined

Dr.Mustak Ahmed as PW-1 vide Exhibit 14. The said Doctor

had conducted the postmortem of the deceased and the

postmortem report is produced vide Exhibit-15, wherein it has

been stated that the cause of death was due to asphyxia due

to hanging.

8.2. The prosecution has examined the mother of the

complainant-Narmadaben, vide exhibit-16 as PW-12 and in

her cross-examination, it has been admitted that the deceased

used to regularly come to her parental house and thereafter,

left and went to stay at the matrimonial home. It has also been admitted by the said complainant in her cross-

examination that, whenever the deceased used to come from

her matrimonial home to the parental home, she was happy

and that the deceased used to come at the interval of 2 to 3

months and stay at the parental house for around one week.

8.3. It has also come on record that the complainant

mother had never given any financial assistance to the

deceased during her lifetime. She has also admitted in her

cross-examination that in-laws of the deceased were giving

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

medical assistance to the deceased as the deceased was not

conceiving a baby and has also admitted that the deceased

was not happy and was always sad for not conceiving the

baby. She has also stated that she had gone to the

matrimonial home of the deceased before one year and at

that point of time, there was a dispute with respect of

cleaning the utensils.

8.4. The said witness i.e. the complainant has also

admitted that the deceased was very sensitive as she could

not conceive a baby and has also admitted that, just before

one and half month from the date of incident, the deceased

had gone on tour with accused nos.6 and 7 to Kashmir. The

brother of the deceased has been examined as PW-3-Vijay

Kovadia vide exhibit-18 and in his cross-examination, he has stated that after the marriage of the deceased he had visited

Ahmedabad only for 3 or 4 times and that the deceased used

to visit her parental house happily and used to live happily.

He had stayed with the deceased for one day when the said

deceased was alive. He has also admitted that the deceased

was not happy as she could not conceive a baby and has

also admitted the fact that the deceased had gone for a tour

with accused no.1-husband to Kashmir and after coming back

from Kashmir had come to her parental house. In his cross-

examination it is also stated that other than the facts which

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

have been informed by his mother i.e. the complainant he is

not aware of any other facts.

8.5. The prosecution has examined Bakulaben as PW-4

vide exhibit-18 who happens to be the sister of the deceased,

who was staying in the same city Ahmedabad, where the

deceased was staying at her matrimonial home. The

prosecution has examined Jayanti Parmar vide Exhibit-29 as

P.W.5 who was ACP before whom the complaint was given

earlier before whom the accidental death report was reported

as accidental death no.23. The prosecution has examined

Vinay Chaudhary as PW-6 vide exhibit 31 who was incharge

ACP, wherein he has stated that he had taken statements of

relatives of the deceased and also two or three people and he

has not noted any other statements. The investigating officer Motibhai Parmar has been examined as PW-7 vide Exhibit-

33. He has stated that he had not taken statements of

neighbors who were residing near the matrimonial home. He

has also stated that he had taken statements of

approximately 20 people in which there were some men and

women but has stated that he has not examined any of the

same as witness. He has also stated that he has not made

any investigation at the parental house of the deceased.

8.6 If the entire case of the prosecution is taken into

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

consideration, the prosecution has mainly relied on the

evidence of the mother i.e. the complainant who has been

examined vide Exhibit-16 as PW-2. But the fact remains that

she herself has admitted that just before the alleged incident,

the deceased had gone with the accused on tour to Kashmir.

The said complainant has also admitted that whenever the

deceased used to come to the matrimonial home, she was

always happy and in return also she was very happy. The

fact that if there was physical or mental abuse and/or

harassment to the deceased, the deceased would have filed

the police complaint, and/ or sent any application to the

Police, but there is nothing on record to show and prove the

said fact.

8.7 Moreover, the prosecution has also not proved the

offence of 498(A) read with section 114 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The

prosecution has not been able to prove that what was the

demand of the dowry and when was the demand made. The

brother and sister of the deceased who have been examined

as PW-3-Vijay Kovadia who has been examined vide Exhibit-

18 and PW-4-Bakulaben who has been examined vide Exhibit-

18 have both admitted the fact that the deceased had gone

for a tour to Kashmir and when she used to come to

parental house she was happy and while returning also she

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

was happy. Therefore the prosecution has not been able to

show that how and which of the accused was physically and

mentally harassing and abusing the deceased and only

general statements have been stated by the complainant in

the complaint. The prosecution has also not been able to

prove the direct proximity i.e. live link between the accused

action and the victim's death. Moreover, the prosecution has

also failed to prove the act of alleged instigation was near

the time of suicide. The prosecution has also not been able

to prove any evidence of positive, direct act that forced a

deceased into a situation with no other option but to take

her life. The prosecution has not been able to prove a

specific incident and or a recent and direct act of the

accused that triggered the immediate suicide.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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:

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

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

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:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

(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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

                                               (5)     If     two         reasonable       conclusions                are
                                               possible on the basis of the evidence on
                                               record,       the     appellate          court      should             not

disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/347/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026

undefined

two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused 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