[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Shashikant Devidas Gajbhie on 24 March, 2026

                                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                        R/CR.A/1694/2012                                              CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                                                                  Reserved On   : 13/03/2026
                                                                                  Pronounced On : 24/03/2026

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                            R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1694 of 2012

                      ==========================================================
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                        Versus
                                           SHASHIKANT DEVIDAS GAJBHIE & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR EKANT G AHUJA(5323) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                      RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                           CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.07.2012, passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (City), in

Sessions Case No.128 of 2012, 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 trial Court is that the complainant Umaben's

daughter, Nikitaben, was married to Shashikant Devraj on

14.02.2010, according to the customs of their community.

After the marriage, Nikita lived at her matrimonial home

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

with her husband Shashikant, her mother-in-law, her sister-

in-law, and her brother-in-law. After the marriage, Nikita

became pregnant. At that time, her mother-in-law used to say

that the child was not her son's child and would taunt and

insult Nikita. Shashikant supported his mother and used to

verbally abuse and physically assault Nikita. Nikita informed

her mother (the complainant) about these incidents, after

which the complainant tried to counsel Nikita as well as her

in-laws. Nikita was even taken to the municipal hospital to

terminate the pregnancy. The family members also made her

do excessive household work. When Nikita suffered stomach

pain, she was taken to Santokba Hospital. Thereafter, the

complainant took Nikita to her parental home and got her

treated at Sharadaben Hospital. Later, in the seventh month

of pregnancy, Nikita delivered a baby boy. However, within ten days of delivery, her mother-in-law again made her to do

household work, which worsened her health. Despite requests

from the complainant to bring Nikita back, the in-laws did

not send her. On 14.04.2011, the complainant received

information on the mobile phone that Nikita's condition was

serious. The complainant and her husband went to

L.G.Hospital, where Nikita's husband and mother-in-law

informed them that Nikita had died by hanging herself. It is

alleged that due to continuous physical and mental

harassment by the accused regarding household work, her

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

character, and the child, Nikita committed suicide by

hanging. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against Nikita's

husband and mother-in-law at Amraiwadi Police Station.

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.128 of 2012. The charge

was framed against the accused person/s. The accused

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and also produced 11 documentary

evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment as under:

Oral Evidence

Sr. Exhibit Name of Witness Details of

No. No. Witness

1 6 Rony Williambhai Chauhan Panch Witness

2 8 Pankajbhai Nagarbhai Parmar Panch Witness

3 11 Dr.Ramanlal Madhavlal Vaishnav Medical Officer

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

4 14 Marutirao Vitthalrao Thavre Witness

5 15 Umaben Marutibhai Complainant

6 18 Atulbhai Marutibhai Khavre Witness

7 19 Rahevarbhai Kanubhai Rathva Police Witness

Documentary Evidence

Sr. Exhibit Details Date

No. No.

1 7 Panchnama of place of offence 15.04.2011

2 10 Inquest Panchnama 14.04.2011

3 12 P.M.Note 14.04.2011

4 15 Complaint of Umaben Marutirao 14.04.2011

Dhavre

5 20 Report as per Section 157 of the 14.04.2011 Cr.P.C

6 21 Letter and opinion written by the 15.04.2011

FSL Officer for visiting the place of

offence

7 22 Vardhi (Information Memo) received 14.04.2011

from L.G.Hospital by the C.M.O.

8 23 Dispatch entry for sending 14.04.2011

muddamal (case property) to FSL

9 24 Acknowledgment of receipt of 17.05.2011

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

muddamal by F.S.L.

10 25 Opinion of F.S.L. 11.08.2011

11 26 Letter for taking back the 12.08.2011

muddamal from F.S.L.

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

is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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 mainly relied on the complaint filed

by the complainant-mother of the deceased. It is the case of

the prosecution that the deceased Nikitaben, married accused

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

no.1 on 14.02.2010 and after the marriage, deceased

Nikitaben was staying with the accused nos.1 and 2, her

sister-in-law Varshaben and brother-in-law Babu and just

after the marriage, when deceased Nikitaben conceived,

accused no.2 used to tell her that the said child which

deceased has conceived was not the child from the marriage

of accused no.1 and deceased Nikita. It is also the case of

prosecution that accused no.2 used to taunt the deceased and

accused no.1 used to support accused no.2 and the accused

used to physically harass the deceased and this fact was

informed to the complainant by the deceased, when she used

to come to her parental house and the complainant-mother of

the deceased used to try to mediate between the deceased

and the accused. It is also alleged that the deceased was

also brought to a municipal hospital at one point of time for

her abortion. It is also alleged that the deceased Nikita was

made to do lot of household work and when deceased Nikita

was five months pregnant, she had intense pain and was

brought to Santokhbaa hospital and after her treatment, and

at the said hospital, the complainant had gone to meet

deceased Nikita and from there she was brought to her

residence and thereafter deceased Nikita was brought to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

Shardaben hospital and during her pregnancy of seventh

month, as she had complications in her health, and the

doctors advised that they should get the child delivered and

thereafter, the child was delivered and a boy child was born,

who was thereafter named as Viresh. It is the case of the

prosecution that on 14.04.2011, the deceased committed

suicide by hanging herself because of the fact that the

accused used to suspect the deceased of her character and

used to mentally and physically harass her and it is only

because of the said fact that the deceased has committed

suicide.

8.2. The mother of the deceased and the complainant-Umaben

Marutibhai has been examined as P.W.5 vide exhibit-15. In

her deposition, she has admitted that as soon as the

deceased informed that she was pregnant and when the

deceased mother i.e. the complainant herein, had asked the

deceased as to whether the said child was from the marriage

of deceased and accused no.1, the accused no.1, had admitted

that it was their child and therefore, there was no dispute

even before the child was born, that, the child is not from

the marriage of deceased and accused no.1. In her deposition,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

she has also stated that the deceased used to cry and tell

her that there is lot of household work that has been

entrusted to her and she has to have medicine from

municipal hospital and after having those medicines, she feels

dizziness. It is also admitted that after the health of the

deceased had improved, she herself had stated that she

wants to go to her in-laws house. It has also come on record

that even during the time of delivery, child Viresh was weak.

It is also coming on record in the deposition that just before

4 days from the date of incident, the complainant had gone

to meet the deceased at her matrimonial home and at that

time, the deceased was crying. In her deposition she has also

stated that on 14.04.2011, when the incident had taken place,

complainant had not seen the daughter nor had gone to the

hospital. In her cross-examination she has also admitted that

the deceased Nikita was short tempered and after 10.04.2011

she has not gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased.

She has also admitted that on 10.04.2011, the daughter

Nikita accused no.1, husband of the complainant and the

complainant had gone to Khodiyar Mata Temple and has

admitted that the child Viresh is with accused at the

matrimonial home of the deceased and after 14.04.2011, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

complainant has not seen the child. She has also admitted

that there was cordial relation between the deceased and

accused no.1 and the deceased Nikita has never come to her

parental home alone and has always come with her sister-in-

law.

8.3. The prosecution has thereafter examined the father of

the deceased Marutirao Thavre, vide exhibit-14, as P.W.4. In

his evidence he has stated that the deceased used to inform

her mother about the mental harassment that was done by

the mother-in-law and her sister-in-law. The said witness has

not stated that the said facts have been ever informed to

him by the deceased. He has also stated that he is not

aware as to how the said incident had taken place. He has

also stated that he is not aware that the deceased was

subjected to any cruelty after the birth of child Viresh. He

has also admitted that it is not true that daughter-Nikita

had come to her parental house after having any fight at her

matrimonial home. He has also stated that daughter Nikita

used to come to her parental house with accused no.1 and it

is only on one occasion when the deceased had come to her

parental house after the fight at the matrimonial home, but

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

at the same time the said witness also states that, at that

time also, the accused no.1 was present. He has also

admitted that there was only one occasion when there was a

dispute at the matrimonial home. He has stated that he is

not aware of any other facts as to why the said incident had

taken place and why the deceased had committed suicide. He

has admitted that just before one day from the date of

incident, i.e. just before 14.04.2011, he along with his wife

i.e. the complainant-Umadevi, accused no.1 and deceased

Nikita had gone to Khodiyar temple. In his further cross-

examination he has stated that initially there was coordial

relation between the deceased and the accused and the said

relation did not remain coordial after the delivery of the

child. The said witness at the said stage at page 2 of his

cross-examination has stated that he is not aware of any

harassment by the accused on deceased after the birth of the

child.

8.4. The brother of the deceased Atulbhai Marutibhai Khavre

has been examined as P.W.6 vide exhibit-18. In his deposition

he has stated something which has not been stated by the

complainant of the reason for the quarrel between the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

deceased and the accused and the said dispute was as to

why the deceased used to regularly go to her parental house

and the said fact was informed to the said witness by the

deceased and in his cross-examination at page 4 of the cross-

examination the said witness states that the deceased along

with the accused had come only once to her parental house.

The said witness also talks about dispute that had arisen

during Raksha Bandhan, but the said fact has not been

stated either by the complainant or by the father of the

deceased.

8.5. If the entire dispute as stated by the complainant is due

to the fact that the accused used to suspect the character of

the deceased and were suspecting whether the child Viresh

was born from the marriage of deceased and accused no.1,

the fact remains that the prosecution has not proved the said

fact.

8.6. Moreover, even according to the complainant and the

father of the deceased and brother of the deceased the said

child is residing with the accused.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

8.7. Moreover, the said witness Atulbhai Khavre who has

been examined as P.W.6 has clearly stated that no incident

of harassment had taken place in his presence. Moreover the

said witness also states that the police had not taken his

statement and therefore the facts stated herein are stated by

the said witness for the first time in his deposition.

8.8. The prosecution has examined Dr. Ramanlal Vaishnav,

who was a Medical Officer at a Civil Hospital, and who had

conducted the postmortem, and the postmortem report is

produced vide exhibit-12, and as per the postmortem report,

the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. The

prosecution has produced the panchnama of place of incident

vide exhibit-7, and the panch witness Ronnie Chauhan has

been examined as P.W.1 vide exhibit-6, and another panch- Pankaj Parmar has been examined as P.W.2 vide exhibit-8,

both have turned hostile and have not supported the case of

the prosecution.

8.9. The prosecution has examined the investigating officer,

Rahevarbhai Rathva as P.W.7 vide exhibit-19, wherein he has

stated that it is true that on the date of incident, the

deceased was alone in the house, and minor child was with

the neighbour. While acquitting the accused, though the

mother of the deceased has alleged that the accused had

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

alleged about the character of the deceased in view of the

fact that in the first month of the marriage, deceased had

become pregnant, but the said fact has not been proved by

the complainant. Moreover, the complainant herself has

admitted that when the news of deceased being pregnant was

informed, accused no.1 had not denied that he is not the

father of the child in the womb of the deceased. Moreover,

the father of the deceased has also made allegations against

the sister-in-law of the deceased, but the said fact has not

been stated by the complainant in the complaint, nor is there

any case, which has been proved by the prosecution that the

sister-in-law was harassing the deceased, and because of the

same fact, she has committed suicide.

8.10. The other factor which also will have to be taken into consideration that, it has come on record that the deceased

was not keeping good health, and on all occasions, the

accused used to take her for treatment to the doctor.

8.11. Moreover, it has also come in the oral evidence of the

prosecution that accused no.1 used to go for work at 09:00

a.m. and used to return at 08:00 p.m., and only few days

before the date of the incident, the accused, deceased and her

parents had gone to the temple, and therefore, it can be said

that there was no matrimonial discord between the accused

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

no.1 and the deceased.

8.12. There are also contradictions in the evidence of the

witnesses of the prosecution, wherein the father and mother

talk about physical and mental harassment to the deceased

in day-to-day household work, and the brother has stated

that the dispute between the deceased and the accused was

that as to why the deceased comes regularly to her parental

house, and at the same time, the said witness has stated

that she had come only once to her residence.

8.13. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that

soon before the incident, there was some harassment or

torture to the deceased at the hands of accused, and that

soon before the incident, there was an incident which

prompted and instigated and or abetted the deceased to

commit suicide. The prosecution has not been able to

establish any convincing or overwhelming evidence that the

accused intended the consequences of the act, namely suicide,

and abetted the 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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.

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,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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.

(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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

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 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:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

undefined

"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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1694/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026