[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Mahendrabhai @ Khodabhai Punambhai ... on 4 May, 2026

                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/2134/2009                                          CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

                                                                                                                      undefined




                                                                               Reserved On   : 16/04/2026
                                                                               Pronounced On : 04/05/2026

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                             R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2134 of 2009

                       ==========================================================
                                             STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                   Versus
                             MAHENDRABHAI @ KHODABHAI PUNAMBHAI CHAUHAN & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR NIKHIL S VYAS(5663) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                           CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.06.2009, passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Sessions

Case No.04/2009, for the offences punishable under Sections

498(A), 306 read with Section 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 deceased, Pintuben, was

married to accused No.1 about twelve years prior to the

incident and had three children from the wedlock. After

marriage, she resided with her husband and in-laws. It is

alleged that the accused persons subjected her to continuous

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

mental and physical cruelty, including harassment over

household work and physical assault. Due to such ill-

treatment, she occasionally went to her parental home but

was persuaded to return to her matrimonial home. Despite

intervention by elders and her attempts to maintain the

marriage, the harassment allegedly continued. Being unable to

bear the constant cruelty, the deceased ultimately committed

suicide by jumping into a canal. Therefore, the complaint was

filed against the respondent/s-accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence

was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-

sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the

offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively

triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate

committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to

be registered as Sessions Case No. 04/2009. The charge was

framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not

guilty and came to be tried.

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

has examined 9 witnesses and also produced 14 documentary

evidences before the trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment are as under;








                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/2134/2009                                    CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

                                                                                                                undefined




                                                          Oral Evidences

                       Witness                                                                                  Exhibit
                                         Name of Witness
                       No.                                                                                      No.
                       (1)               Dr. Dilipbhai Mektabhai Ugrejiya (Medical Officer)                     10

Arjanbhai Bijalbhai Sodha Parmar (Complainant)

(Uncle of the deceased Pintuben) Jayantibhai Bijalbhai Sodha Parmar (Father of the

deceased Pintuben) Dhudiben Jayantibhai Sodha Parmar (Mother of the

deceased Pintuben) Kalabhai Bijalbhai Sodha Parmar (Uncle of the

deceased Pintuben) Hemabhai Laxmanbhai Chauhan (Uncle/Fuva of the

deceased Pintuben) Randhirsinh Sardarsinh Dodiya, P.S.I.

(Investigating Officer) Mansinh Punjabhai Chauhan, A.S.I. (Officer who

conducted the initial accidental death inquiry)

Documentary Evidences Sr. Exhibit Description of Document No. No.

1. Complaint of the complainant Arjanbhai Bijalbhai Parmar 19 Panchnama of the scene of the offense (Crime Scene

Panchnama)

6. Receipt of handing over the deceased's body to relatives 15

7. Certificate showing the cause of death of the deceased 12

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

Sr. Exhibit Description of Document No. No.

Field copy of the dispatch note prepared while sending

8. muddamal (evidence) to the Forensic Science Laboratory 34 (FSL) for examination Receipt of delivery of muddamal (evidence) received by the

9. 35-36 Forensic Science Laboratory Dispatch letter written to the P.S.I. Thasra Police Station by

10. the Forensic Science Laboratory while sending the analysis 37-39 report Analysis report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL

11. 38-40 Report)

12. Public notice given by Arvindbhai Sardarbhai Parmar 25 Settlement agreement made between the deceased and

Telephone message received regarding the deceased having

drowned in canal water

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/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

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.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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 uncle of the complainant, which is

produced vide Exh-19, wherein, it is the case of the

complainant that after the marriage of the deceased with

accused No. 1, i.e., Mahendrabhai Chauhan. They had cordial

relations for the first two months, and there were disputes

between the accused No. 2, i.e., the mother-in-law of the

deceased and the deceased for day to day household works,

and on that account the deceased was mentally and

physically harassed by the accused. Therefore, the deceased

as she was upset because of the constant physical and

mental harassment, used to come to her parental house, and

at that time the family members of the deceased used to

counsel the deceased, and send her back to her matrimonial

home.

8.2. It is the case of the prosecution, that four years

prior to the date of the incident, the deceased was harassed

by the accused for not bringing anything from her family.

Consequently, trivial domestic disputes occurred, during which

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

the deceased was subjected to persistent mental and physical

harassment and taunting. Therefore, the deceased stayed

for three years at her parental home.

8.3. In the year 2005, an application for maintenance

was filed before the Kapadvanj Court, and thereafter, as

members of the community intervened, a settlement was

arrived after which the deceased was sent to her matrimonial

home, and yet again the deceased was physically and

mentally harassed by the accused. One month prior to the

incident, the deceased had come to the residence of her

uncle, i.e., the complainant, and informed him that she was

still being harassed by the accused.

8.4. It is also the case of the prosecution that, on the

last Sunday before the incident, the deceased had also called

the complainant and informed him that the accused had

physically assaulted her, and therefore, the mother of the

deceased had come to the village Amrutpura, and tried to

explain to the deceased, and on the same night the mother

returned to her house. On the next day, the complainant got

information that the deceased had committed suicide by

drowning herself in a canal, and it is the case of the

complainant that the deceased had committed suicide because

of the constant harassment by the accused.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

8.5 The prosecution has examined Dilipbhai Mektabhai

Ugrejiya as PW-1, vide Exh-10. The post-mortem report is

produced vide Exh-11, and the certificate stating the cause of

death is produced vide Exh-12. The cause of death of the

deceased, as per the report produced vide Exh-11 and 12, is

cardio-respiratory arrest caused by asphyxia due to drowning.

8.6. The prosecution has produced the panchnama of

place of incident vide Exh-13, the inquest panchnama has

been produced vide Exh-14. No panch witnesses have been

examined with respect to the panchnama of the Exhs-13 and

8.7. The uncle of the deceased i.e., the complainant,

namely Arjanbhai, has been examined as PW-2, vide Exh-18,

as per his deposition, he stated that the father of the

deceased, Jayantibhai, is his elder brother, and Pintuben was

married about 12 years prior to the incident with accused

No. 1, Mahendra of village Amrutpura. After about two

months of marriage, the accused persons began subjecting her

to physical and mental cruelty and assault over household

issues, due to which she frequently returned to her parental

home, but was sent back after persuasion. The marriage

continued for about four years, after which the harassment

intensified, leading Pintuben to reside at her parental home

and file a maintenance case before the Kapadvanj Court. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

dispute was later settled and she was sent back to her

matrimonial home. However, the accused continued to subject

her to cruelty and physical assault. Upon complaint to her

mother Dhuliben, her mother visited the matrimonial home

and reprimanded the accused. On the following day, news

was received from one relative namely Abhesinh that

Pintuben had fallen into a canal. However, the said Abhesinh

who said to have informed about death of deceased has not

been examined by the prosecution. In his cross-examination

the complainant has admitted that, it is true that only to

know the reason, how the deceased fell into the canal, the

present complaint was filed. He has also admitted that he

had not met the deceased two months prior to the incident.

8.8 The father of the deceased Jayantibhai Sodhabhai

has been examined as PW-3, vide Exh-20, he states that

there was a demand of giving a buffalo to the accused by

the parents of the deceased. The said fact has not been

stated by the complainant in his complaint.

8.9. The mother of the deceased Dhudiben has been

examined as PW-4, vide Exh- 21. The prosecution has

examined Kalabhai Bijalbhai Parmar as the uncle of the

deceased as PW-5, vide Exh-22

8.10. The paternal uncle of the deceased Hemabhai

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

Chauhan has been examined as PW-6, vide Exh-26. He has

placed on record the settlement that had arrived at in the

maintenance application which is produced vide Exh-27.

8.11. The prosecution has examined Randhirsinh Dodiya,

the P.S.I., at Thasara as PW-7, vide Exh-28. In his

deposition he has stated that he had taken the statement of

one Kalabhai Parmar, with respect to the harassment that

was done on the deceased by the accused, but the said

witness has not been examined. The initial complaint was

given to the said witness, and all the statements of the

witnesses were taken by the said P.S.I. at Thasara.

8.12. The A.S.I. Mansinh Chauhan has been examined

at Exh-30. He had prepared the inquest panchnama and the

statements were taken by him. He has also stated that in

his investigation and after taking statements from the

witnesses, it has come out that the deceased was having

cordial relations at her matrimonial home.

8.13. The prosecution has thereafter examined the P.S.I.

Rajeshkumar Oza, as PW-9 vide Exh-32 and investigation

was given to him, pursuant to the transfer of PW-7 i.e.,

Randhirsinh Dodiya, he had prepared the charge-sheet.

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

consideration, the prosecution has not been able to prove as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

to what harassment was done by the accused on the

deceased. It also transpires that the settlement had arrived

at in the maintenance application in the year 2007, which is

produced vide Exh-27.

8.15. If the evidence of the family members of the

deceased are taken into consideration, the same are domestic

quarrel over trivial matters. The prosecution has not been

able to prove that there was ill-treatment or harassment of

such a nature, and that the deceased was left with no option

or her life is made miserable. Moreover, the prosecution has

also not been able to prove the proximity of time between

the incident of harassment and suicide. Moreover, there is

contradiction and discrepancies in the evidence of the

complainant and the family members. The complainant does

not state that the accused had demanded a buffalo from the

family members of the deceased and the father of the

deceased who has been examined as PW-3, has stated that

there was a demand of a buffalo to be given by the family

members of the deceased.

8.16. Moreover, the complainant himself had not met

the deceased two months prior to the date of the incident,

nor has he ever talked to the deceased during the said two

months. The prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased

was mentally and physically harassed by the accused.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

9. 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.

9.1. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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.

9.2. 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.

9.3. 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.

9.4. It is therefore not sufficient to show that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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.

9.5. 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

9.6. 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.

9.7. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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

that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be

proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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

any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that

the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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

1417 wherein it is held as under:

"... This court has observed in Girija

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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 extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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.

It is further observed that High Court's interference in such

appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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 possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to

interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

undefined

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