Holding

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, finding no evidence of abetment of suicide or destruction of evidence.

Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal of three accused who were charged with abetment of suicide (Sec. 306 IPC), destruction of evidence (Sec. 201 IPC) and related offences. The prosecution relied on the complainant’s testimony, several witnesses and forensic reports, but the trial court found the key witnesses to be hearsay and noted contradictions, concluding that the death was a suicide without any proven instigation by the accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the same evidence and held that the prosecution failed to establish a causal link, motive, or proximate act of abetment required under Sec. 306 IPC, nor any act amounting to destruction of evidence under Sec. 201 IPC. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the stringent requirements for conviction under Sec. 306, the Court affirmed that the trial court’s reasoning was sound and not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.

Issues considered

Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused abetted the suicide of the deceased under Section 306 IPC?
Did the accused commit the offence of destruction of evidence under Section 201 IPC?
Can the appellate court set aside the trial court's acquittal on the basis of alleged misappreciation of evidence?
Was there sufficient evidence of motive and proximate act of instigation by the accused?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378, s. 379
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 114, s. 201, s. 302, s. 306, s. 34

Subjects

abetment of suicideSection 306 IPCSection 201 IPCacquittal appealevidentiary standardspresumption of innocenceCriminal Procedure Code

Judgment

R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

Reserved On : 18/03/2026
Pronounced On : 08/04/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2661 of 2008

==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHARVAD CHEHARABHAI RAJABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED 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 07.08.2008, passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court

No.3, Patan, in Sessions Case No.81 of 2007, for the offences

under Sections 306, 201 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”). The present appeal is abated qua

respondent no.3 and it is heard qua respondent nos.1 and 2.

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before

the trial Court is that the complainant, Amaratbhai

Shankarbhai Thakor, had gone to Radhanpur for labour work

on 29.12.2006 and stayed there overnight. The next morning,

Page 1 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

upon being informed to return home urgently, he found his

brother Merambhai dead. On inquiry, he learned that the

accused had allegedly murdered his brother and staged it as

a hanging. It was further revealed that the deceased’s wife

was having an illicit relationship with the main accused.

Based on this, an offence was registered on 30.12.2006 at

Varahi Police Station under Sections 302 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

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.81 of 2007. 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 6 witnesses and also produced 22 documentary

evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment as under:

Details Exhibit

Page 2 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

Deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 1 – 15

Amaratbhai Shankarbhai Thakor (Complainant).

Original Complaint. 16

Panchnama of the place of occurrence 16

Inquest Panchnama of the dead body 17

Panchnama of the scene of offence 18

Panchnama of seizure of clothes from the dead 19

body

Panchnama regarding the physical condition of 20 to 22

the accused

Deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 2 – Thakor 24

Jemalbhai Shankarbhai (Witness)

Deposition of Prosecution Witness No.3 – 26

Sagarbhai Merambhai (Witness)

Deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 4 – Dr. 27

Paresh Kanaiyalal Kadiya

Yadi (requisition) made to the Medical Officer 28

Post-mortem note of the dead body 29

Certificate showing cause of death 30

Deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 5 – Manish 31

Bhagwanji Nakum (Investigating Officer)

Page 3 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

Report for registration of offence 32

Deputy order 33

Yadi addressed to the Executive Magistrate 34

Yadi for conducting inquest 35

Post-mortem form 36

Receipt of handing over the dead body 37

Receipt regarding articles (muddamal) received 38

Preliminary report of the Forensic Science 39

Laboratory (FSL)

Report for addition of sections 40

Yadi made to the Medical Officer 41

Dispatch entry of FSL 42

Forwarding letter for sending muddamal to FSL 43

FSL Report 44

Deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 6 – 45

Raghuvarsinh Mahavirsinh Bhadoriya

(Investigating Officer).

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

Page 4 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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

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. The appeal is abated qua respondent no.3. Though

served, none appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and

2.

Page 5 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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 complainant, PW 1, Amrutbhai Shankarbhai, was

examined on oath vide exhibit 15. In his deposition, he

stated that he came to know about the incident from his

brother, Jemalbhai, after he returned home. When he

reached home, the dead body of Merambhai was lying

there, and upon asking Jemalbhai, he was told that

Merambhai had been strangled to death. Thereafter, when

the police arrived, he lodged the complaint, in which it
was stated that his brother had been killed by

strangulation. On perusal of the deposition of this witness,

it appears that he is not an eyewitness, but only a

hearsay witness. Furthermore, even in the complaint lodged

by him, he has committed an error, as he has stated in

Paragraph 3 of his examination-in- chief. Due to

misunderstanding, although his brother had in fact

committed suicide, he mentioned in the complaint that the

accused had killed him. In fact, the reason alleged for his

Page 6 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

brother’s suicide was that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were

having an illicit relationship, on account of which his

brother committed suicide.

8.2. In the cross-examination of this witness, he admitted

that he did not have any speaking terms with the

deceased, Mehrambhai, and that they did not visit each

other even for social dealings. He has further stated in

cross- examination that he had not spoken either with the

deceased’s son, Prahladbhai, or with accused No. 2,

Bhuriben. Thus, upon considering his testimony, it appears

that even his brother, Jemalbhai, is a hearsay witness,

and the complaint has been lodged based on what he was

told by Jemalbhai. Moreover, although the complaint was

initially filed alleging the offence of murder, subsequently
in his testimony before the court he revealed that the

death of the deceased was not homicidal but suicidal.

Therefore, from the testimony of this witness, it is

established only that the deceased committed suicide;

however, the reason for such suicide is not proved.

8.3. The evidence of PW-2, Thakor Jemalbhai Shankarbhai,

is available at Exhibit 24. He is the brother of the

deceased, Mehrambhai. This witness has also deposed that

the cause of death of the deceased was the illicit

Page 7 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 2, on account of

which his brother died.

8.4. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution, one

of the material witnesses is Sagarbhai Mehrambhai, who

has been examined as PW-3 at Exhibit 26. According to

the prosecution, this witness is an eyewitness. In his

examination, Sagarbhai stated that the complainant is his

uncle; the deceased was his father, accused No. 2 is his

mother, and accused No. 3 is his maternal uncle. He has

further stated that accused No. 1 belongs to the Bharwad

community and that he has no relation with him.

8.5. He further states that on the day of the incident, his

mother Bhuriben, his brother Bharat, and all of them

were present at home. In the afternoon, his maternal

uncle Jodhabhai came, and in the evening, his uncle also

came, who stays at Sangli. In the evening, all of them

were sitting down to have dinner, Cheharabhai came to

their house. Later, when beds were arranged for sleeping,

they were all sitting on the cots and talking, at that time,

his father told his mother to tell Cheharabhai not to come

to their house. Thereafter, his father also directly told

Cheharabhai not to visit their house. At that point,

Cheharabhai (accused no. 1) replied that he would continue

Page 8 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

to come, as he had an illicit relationship with Bhuri. Upon

this, his father told Bhuriben to ask Cheharabhai (accused

no. 1) not to come, otherwise he would end his life.

However, Bhuriben (accused no. 2) responded that even if

he died, it did not matter, and that Cheharabhai (accused

no. 1) would continue to come. Thereafter, they went to

sleep, and around midnight they heard some commotion

from the cattle-shed, where a lamp was on. He, along with

his brother Bharat, went to the shed and saw that all

three accused were standing there, and his father was

hanging with a ligature around his neck. Thereafter, his

maternal uncle cut the rope by which his father was

hanging, and all three of them laid his father on a cot.

Accused Cheharabhai (accused no. 1) then left for his

house. After some time, his maternal uncle and others also
went to their respective houses, and thereafter his mother

started crying listening to which his uncle and some other

people came. Another uncle Amratbhai i.e. complainant,

came at noon on next day. This witness stated that his

father committed suicide due to shock as his mother has

an affair with the accused.

8.6. In cross-examination, the witness admits that he does

not know what time it was at night when he woke up.

His mother started crying at around 4–5 a.m. If this

Page 9 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

witness had actually seen his father’s dead body in the

morning, he would have raised an alarm or at least

informed the neighbors or relatives immediately. However,

this witness did not do anything of that sort. Therefore,

his testimony appears to be doubtful.

8.7. The testimony of PW-4, the doctor, is also

important. In his deposition, Dr. Paresh Kanaiyalal

Gadiya states that he conducted the post-mortem of

the deceased’s body and that the cause of death was

asphyxia due to hanging. According to him, if a person

hangs himself by tying a noose around the neck, the

injuries noted in the post-mortem report are possible.

In the general external injuries on the body, ligature

marks of a brownish color were present on the neck,

and at the place of the knot, there were no ligature

marks on the right side at the back of the neck. Thus,

looking upon testimony of the doctor it can be said

that deceased has committed suicide.

8.8. On considering the testimony of witness Sagarbhai, it

appears that in the evening the deceased served food to

Cheharabhai and also made him sleep there. The

deceased told Cheharabhai not to come to their house,

but Cheharabhai replied that he would still come since

Page 10 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

he had an illicit relationship with his wife. In these

circumstances, even if such an illicit relationship existed,

no person would openly make such a statement to the

husband. Therefore, the claim regarding the existence of

such an illicit relationship does not appear to be

believable in reality.

8.9. The deceased told his wife that if accused no. 1

came, he would kill himself, to which his wife replied

that even if he died, it would not matter, but accused

no. 1 would still come. Merely on the basis of such

statements, it cannot be accepted that any person would

commit suicide. Moreover, the witness did not see his

father at the time when he went to commit suicide.

The witness also did not state anything about what his

father did before committing suicide, how the rope was

tied, or how exactly he hanged himself.

8.10. When Cheharabhai (accused no.1) came, he was

served food and allowed to sleep in the house, which

indicates that there was no bitterness in the

relationship between them.

8.11. Furthermore, the accused are charged under

Section 201 of the IPC for destruction of evidence.

Page 11 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

However, accused No. 3 merely cut the rope by which

the deceased was hanging and brought the body down,

placing it on a cot, and did nothing else. Therefore, it

cannot be said that there was any destruction of

evidence. Destruction of evidence can be said to have

occurred only when the evidence is concealed or

tampered with in such a manner that no evidence

remains against the accused. In the present case, the

accused did not commit any act to dispose of or conceal

the dead body. The body was left in the same place,

and this fact has also been witnessed by Sagar. It is

also possible that the accused acted in such a manner

in an attempt to save the deceased, so that if he were

still alive, he could be taken to the hospital and

possibly be saved by bringing him down. If the deceased
was already dead while hanging, then it makes no

difference whether the body remained hanging or was

brought down and placed on a cot, as the person had

already died.

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

Page 12 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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.

Page 13 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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

Page 14 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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

Page 15 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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

Page 16 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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.

Page 17 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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.

Page 18 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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

Page 19 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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 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

Page 20 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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

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,

Page 21 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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

Page 22 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

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:

Page 23 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

“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

Page 24 of 25
R/CR.A/2661/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the

view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the

acquittal.

21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same

deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record

& Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court

forthwith.

Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RANA URIL K(HC01406), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/04/2026 14:37:31

Page 25 of 25