[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Chhaganbhai Durlabbhai Katrodiya on 18 March, 2026

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1635/2008                                           CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                                                                  Reserved On   : 11/03/2026
                                                                                  Pronounced On : 18/03/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1635 of 2008

                       ==========================================================
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                       Versus
                                       CHHAGANBHAI DURLABBHAI KATRODIYA & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
                       MR MAULIK NANAVATI FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the
                       Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                          CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.01.2008, passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch, in Sessions Case No.176

of 1993, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),

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 Sessions Court, in a nutshell, is that on

03.09.1992, before 12:30 hours, the grand-son of the

complainant viz., Hitesh Upendrabhai has told that there was

a telephone call from Bharuch to his uncle Chandrakant

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

requesting to come to Bharuch immediately, as Ranjanben is

serious. Therefore, since he was not well, he sent his wife

and his elder son viz., Upendrabhai; and that after reaching

Bharuch, they have conveyed on telephone that Ranjanben

has expired; and that the said message was conveyed by

Hitesh to him on 04.09.1992 at about 9:00 a.m., after

reaching at Virpur; and that therefore, the complaint was

filed, against the respondent/s-accused, on the ground that

the accused persons were harassing the deceased mentally

and physically, taunting for the household chores and

demanding dowry, therefore, the deceased had poured

kerosene on herself along with her minor daughter - Pooja,

who was aged about 9 months, as there were frequent

quarrels between the deceased and the accused for the dowry

as well as for the household chores.

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.176 of 1993. The charge

was framed against the accused person/s. The accused

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

4.1 In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

has examined 9 witnesses before the trial Court, which are

described in the impugned judgment, which are as under :

: ORAL EVIDENCE :

Sr.No. P.W. No. Name of Prosecution Particulars Exh.No.

witness

Lallubhai Patel Officer, who

has done the

postmortem

of both the

deceased

2 2 Dahyabhai Waghjibhai Complainant 46

Patel

Dahyabhai Mother of the

deceased

Sister-in-law

('Bhabhi') of

the deceased

Chaudhari

7. 7 Retd. Head Constable - Police Officer, 61

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

Laxmanbhai Dhanabhai who have

recorded the

statements of

the witnesses

8. 8 Retd. P.S.I. Maganji Police Officer 62

Dungji Thakor who have

investigated

the AD

Himmatlal Chimanlal Officer and

Parmar who has

registered the

complaint

4.2 The prosecution has produced 11 documentary

evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment, which are as under :

: Documentary Evidence :

                        Sr.No.      Particulars                                         Exh.No.







                                    from the dead body of the deceased -

                                    Ranjanben and sealed the same









                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1635/2008                                            CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

                                                                                                                        undefined




                                    Ranjanben







                                    PSO     as     well     as   handing    over   the

                                    investigation

list of items pending with the accused

given by the complainant on the

occasion of her daughter's (deceased's)

marriage.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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 case of the prosecution is with respect to the

incident that had taken place on 03.09.1992, for which, the

complaint has been filed by the complainant - father of the

deceased viz., Dahyabhai Waghjibhai Patel on 12.09.1992. It

is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was staying

with accused No.1 - husband viz., Chhaganbhai Durlabhbhai

Katarodiya, accused No.2 - father-in-law viz., Durlabhbhai

Karamshibhai Katarodiya and accused No.3 - mother-in-law

viz., Shantaben Durlabhbhai Katarodiya and from the marriage of accused No.1 and the deceased, they had one

daughter viz., Pooja, who was nine months old at the time of

the incident; and that the deceased had come to Bharuch,

since last 11 months from the date of the incident and the

deceased and accused No.1 used to come regularly to her

parental home; and that accused No.1 had come to the

parental home of the deceased, before three months from the

date of the incident and had stayed there for two days and

thereafter, after two months from the said date, the deceased

and minor daughter Pooja, had also come and resided at her

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

parental home and stayed there for twenty days; and that at

that point of time, the deceased had informed the

complainant and her mother, that the accused were taunting

the deceased that, she does not know how to handle the

household chores and/or cook food; and that there was always

quarrel for the aforesaid reasons; and that the deceased was

mentally harassed. The deceased had also informed that the

accused used to taunt the deceased that, she used to prepare

excessive food and waste the food; and that for the said

reason also, the deceased was always scolded by the accused.

In the complaint, it has also been stated that

before one month from the date of incident, the wife of the

complainant had come to reside with the deceased at her

matrimonial home and at that point of time also, the

deceased has narrated that, the deceased was harassed by the accused mentally and physically; and that they were not

given proper food to her; and that there was a demand for

sewing machine and Rs.10,000/- by the accused; and that on

03.09.1992, because of the aforesaid harassment and demand

of money, the deceased poured kerosene on herself and and

committed suicide with minor daughter Pooja.

8.2 The prosecution has examined Dr.Vinaychandra

Lallubhai Patel as P.W.1, vide Exh.42, who was the Medical

Officer at Civil Hospital, Bharuch and who had conducted the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

postmortem of the deceased - Ranjanben and minor daughter

- Pooja. The post-mortem reports of Ranjanben and Pooja are

produced vide Exh.20 and Exh.21, respectively. The cause of

death in both the post-mortem reports is mentioned as 'due

to shock following extensive superficial burns.

8.3 The prosecution has examined the complainant -

Dahyabhai Waghjibhai Patel as P.W.2, vide Exh.46. In his

cross-examination, he has stated that it is true that when

accused Nos.1 and 2 used to come to their house, they used

to talk nicely and the relation was cordial.

The mother of the deceased viz., Devkunvarben

Dahyabhai Patel has been examined as P.W.3, vide Exh.57.

In her cross-examination, she has admitted that from the

date of marriage till there was baby shower ceremony, there

was no dispute and after the delivery of the child, when the deceased went to her matrimonial home, she has not gone to

the matrimonial home.

The prosecution has thereafter examined sister-in-

law ('bhabhi') of the deceased viz., Madhuben Upendrabhai

i.e. wife of the brother of the deceased - Upendrabhai, as

P.W.4 vide Exh.58. She has stated that the deceased used to

inform her that she was mentally harassed by the accused.

In her cross-examination, she has admitted that after the

delivery of the child and after the deceased went to her

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

matrimonial home, there was no complaint made by the

deceased to her.

8.4 The prosecution has examined independent

witnesses viz., Kanubhai Vitthalbhai, who had taken the

deceased to the police station, as P.W.5, vide Exh.59, who

was rickshaw driver and Arunbhai Ramdas Chaudhary as

P.W.6, vide Exh.60. Both have turned hostile and have not

supported the case of the prosecution.

8.5 The prosecution has examined Head Constable,

Bharuch 'A' Division Police Station viz., Laxmanbhai

Dhanabhai as P.W.7, vide Exh.61. He had went to Virpur on

17.09.1992 and had taken the statements of Devkunvarben,

Dahyabhai Waghjibhai, Madhuben, Bhartiben Shantibhai.

The Dy.S.P. - Himmatlal Chimanlal Parmar has

been examined by the prosecution as P.W.9, vide Exh.66,

who, in his cross-examination, has admitted that in the

investigation pursuant to the A.D. note filed before the

complaint dated 12.09.1992, it has come on record that there

was no offence.

8.6 The defence has examined accused No.1 as D.W.1,

vide Exh.82.

Chandrakantbhai Dahyabhai Patel as D.W.2, vide

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

Exh.98, who is a brother of the deceased, who was a

practicing advocate for 25 years at the relevant point of time

when he has deposed before the Court. If his evidence is

taken into consideration, he has stated that during the

marriage of the deceased and accused No.1, which lasted for

2 ½ years, there were no disputes between them. He has

also stated that the deceased had never complained against

the accused. He has also stated that he has received all the

belongings of the deceased.

8.7 If the entire evidence of the prosecution is taken

into consideration, the complainant himself has stated that

when the accused used to come to his residence, there was

cordial relation between them. He has also stated that the

letters produced vide Exhs.52 and 54 also do not show that the accused were instigating or conspiring and/or initially

aiding the deceased to commit suicide.

The other relevant factors, which were also

required to be taken into consideration, are that the

complaint filed by the complainant is after nine days from

the date of incident. The son of the complainant is a lawyer

and the prosecution has failed to justify the reason for the

delay in filing the said complaint.

If the evidence of the police officer is taken into

consideration, they have failed to prove the offences as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

alleged. The prosecution has also failed to prove that there

was a demand of dowry.

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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:

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

(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 presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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."

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1635/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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