High Court of Gujarat
STATE OF GUJARATversusHARILAL @ HARIYA CHHOTUBHAI GAMIT
- Disposal
- 39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH
Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s acquittal, finding no material evidence establishing the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal of the accused in a murder case under Section 302 IPC, where a six‑year‑old boy, Tejas, was found dead in a well. The prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of the boy's mother, who admitted a sexual relationship with the accused, and on circumstantial evidence that the accused had threatened her. The trial court found the evidence contradictory, noted the absence of direct proof linking the accused to the boy’s death, and held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal. The State argued that the trial court mis‑appreciated material evidence and that the accused’s alleged confession and threats should have been given weight. The High Court re‑appraised the evidence, found no direct link, noted inconsistencies in witness statements, and concluded that the trial court’s reasoning was sound. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the limited scope of appellate interference with acquittals, the Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The prosecution proved the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the trial court erred in discounting the mother’s testimony and alleged extra‑judicial confession.
- Whether the appellate court can overturn an acquittal absent patent perversity or mis‑appreciation of material evidence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
appeal against acquittalSection 302 IPCSection 378 CrPCpresumption of innocenceevidence appraisalmurder of childextra‑judicial confessionpatent perversity
Judgment
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 516 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HARILAL @ HARIYA CHHOTUBHAI GAMIT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.SUBHASH G BAROT(2619) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 09/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER)
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.10.2002, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions
Case No.11 of 2002, for the offences punishable under Section
302 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”).
Page 1 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial
before the lower Court is that the complainant-Manubhai
Babubhai Gamit is residing with his family in Vansda
taluka; that his younger brother-Bachu got married with
Gitaben before fifteen years and he has two sons out of the
said wedlock-Dharmesh and Tejas, out of whom, Tejas was
aged 6 and studying in first standard; that on 8.11.2001 at
17.30 hours, Tejas went missing from the verandah ( faliya)
and when he was not found inspite of great efforts, the
younger brother of the complainant informed about the same
in the police chowky of Unai outpost on 10.11.2001; that on
11.11.2001, the complainant’s brother Bachu and Arvind and
other persons went to Navsari in search of Tejas and the
complainant was searching for him in the village; the
complainant’s brother Sanmukh informed him that he last
saw Tejas on 8.11.2001 at 5.30 hours; that when the
complainant was at home, Gulab Magan of the said faliya
came and informed one lady came to him and informed that
one child’s dead body is found in the isolated well of
Kishanbhai; therefore, the complainant, Gulabbhai, Chandan
Manji, Bhikha Devji, the complainant’s brother Sanmukh etc.
went to the field of Kishanbhai and saw in the well and
found that the dead body of Tejas was floating therein;
therefore, the complainant filed the complaint in Unai
outpost.
Page 2 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
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.11 of 2002. 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 10 witnesses and also produced 10
documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are
described in the impugned judgment.
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis
of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial
Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the
charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has
pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court
through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before
the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial
Page 3 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
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. 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.
Page 4 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
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 prosecution has relied on the deposition of the
mother of the deceased viz., Gitaben Bachubhai Gamit, who
has been examined as P.W.2, vide Exh.15 and if her
deposition is taken into consideration, she has stated that she
married with Bachubhai and from the said marriage, she had
two children i.e. Dharmesh (elder son) and deceased Tejas
(younger son); and that at the time of incident, deceased
st
Tejas was studying in 1 standard and was six years old;
and that at the time of the incident, her husband was
staying in Surat and used to come to the village only once
in a month and when she used to go to Government borewell
to fill water, she used to meet accused over there and slowly
her relation with the accused was developed and they also
got physically involved with each other and during night
hours, the accused used to come to the residence of the said
witness - Gitaben and whenever the accused used to come at
night hours, she would wake up and go out and have
physical relation with the accused and the said witness –
Gitaben, who is a mother of the deceased Tejas, has also
Page 5 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
stated that once she was sleeping with the accused, the son
of the deceased came to know and asked the witness that
why is the accused sleeping with her and at that point of
time, the said witness had informed the accused that the
deceased Tejas has come to know about their physical
intimacy and therefore he should not come to her residence
and at that point of time, the accused informed the deponent
- Gitaben that she should not worry; and that he will make
Tejas understand and she should continue to have physical
relation with the accused. The said witness has also further
stated that on 08.11.2001, the deceased’s son went missing
and the deponent i.e. the mother of the deceased, mother-in-
law, sister-in-law and elder sister-in-law (‘Jethani’) started
searching for deceased Tejas.
At around 9:00 p.m., when the accused came at
the house of the deponent from backdoor, the deponent
thought that the Tejas had come and therefore, she opened
the door and at that time, she saw the accused; and that
the accused informed her that, her son - Tejas is with him
as she has not kept physical relation with him since one
month and therefore, Tejas is in his possession; and that if
she will again keep physical relation with the accused, he
(the accused) will keep Tejas safe; and that upon assurance,
the deponent had kept physical relation with the accused.
Further, the accused had also threatened the
Page 6 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
deponent that she should not inform this fact to anyone in
the family, otherwise he will kill Tejas and her.
In her cross-examination, the deponent also does
not explain as to why she did not file a missing complaint of
Tejas on the same day and filed a complaint on the next
day. There are lot of contradictions in the statement given by
her before the police and in her deposition. In her police
statement, she has not stated that the accused had told the
deponent that if she will keep physical relation with him, he
will treat Tejas well. She has also admitted that she had
informed the police of his relation with the accused only on
13.11.2001. The dead body of Tejas was found on 11.11.2001
and the police came on the next day.
8.2 If the deposition of P.W.1 - Manubhai Babubhai
Gamit, who has been examined vide Exh.8, is taken into
consideration vis-a-vis the complaint - Exh.9, in his cross-
examination, P.W.1 has stated that he had not informed that
the accused had killed Tejas, because his brother’s wife -
Gitaben did not keep physical relation with the accused. He
has also stated that he is not aware as to how Tejas has
expired. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that
Tejas has been murdered just because he may not reveal the
relationship of the accused with Gitaben i.e. the mother of
Tejas.
Page 7 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
If the deposition of P.W.2 - Gitaben (Exh.15) is
th
taken into consideration, she has stated that till 10 date,
she did not doubt on any person of murder of Tejas.
8.3 The father of Tejas - Bachubhai Gamit has been
th
examined as P.W.3, vide Exh.16. He has stated that on 9
date, when he had come home, his wife - Gitaben has not
informed him as to how Tejas was missing.
8.4 If the oral evidence of P.W.7 - Dr.Ravindra
Garasiya, who has been examined vide Exh.20, who has
conducted the postmortem, is taken into consideration, it
transpires that the cause of death of deceased - Tejas was –
asphyxia due to strangulation (as per postmortem note –
Exh.21).
8.5 In the present case, there is no eye witness to the
incident. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused
had taken deceased - Tejas on his cycle on 08.11.2001.
The prosecution has relied on the evidence of
P.W.5 - Sanmukhbhai Babubhai, who has been examined vide
Exh.18, P.W.4 -Babubhai Dhedabhai Gamit, who has been
examined vide Exh.17 and P.W.2 - Gitaben Bachubhai Gamit,
who has been examined vide Exh.15.
If the evidence of P.W.5 - Sanmukhbhai Babubhai
(Exh.18) is taken into consideration, he has stated that he
Page 8 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
had seen deceased - Tejas when he had gone to graze the
cattle at 5:30 p.m. Whereas, P.W.4 – Babubhai Dhedabhai
Gamit (Exh.17) has stated that he had seen the accused with
deceased - Tejas at 6.00 p.m. Whereas, P.W.2 - Gitaben
Bachubhai Gamit (Exh.15) has stated that when she came
back at 6.30 p.m., Tejas had come and stated that the
accused was calling her and thereafter Tejas went for playing
and did not return.
The prosecution has not proved that after 6.30
p.m., the deceased - Tejas has been seen with the accused;
and that the prosecution has also not proved that after 6.30
p.m., the accused was with the deceased - Tejas.
8.6 The prosecution has mainly tried to put forward
their case by evidence of mother of the deceased – Tejas viz.,
Gitaben - P.W.2 (Exh.15). In her deposition, she has admitted
that she had physical relation with the accused; and that the
accused used to come and have physical relation with her;
and that since last one month, there was no physical
relationship between them. The case of the prosecution was
that just because the said witness – P.W.2 has refused for
physical relation with the accused, the accused had taken
deceased - Tejas and then killed him.
The prosecution is trying to rely on extra judicial
confession of the fact that the accused had informed the said
Page 9 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
witness (P.W.2) that he had taken the deceased - Tejas with
him. However, the fact remains that P.W.1 - Manubhai
Babubhai Gamit (Exh.8) has clearly stated that on the date
when Tejas went missing, he and other neighbours had
gathered at the house of Tejas till 10 p.m and all had gone
to search for Tejas and for the entire night, they did not
sleep and searched for Tejas.
In his cross-examination, P.W.4 – Babubhai
Dhedabhai Gamit (P.W.17) has also clearly stated that in the
evening, Tejas did not come home and everybody was
searching for him.
P.W.5 – Sanmukhbhai Babubhai (Exh.18) has also
stated that Tejas had not come back and all were waiting at
the residence thinking that Tejas would come back.
It also transpires from the evidence of P.W.1 -
Manubhai Babubhai Gamit (Exh.8) that around 10 p.m.,
Kishore had gone to telephonically inform the father of Tejas
and till the time he came back, everybody was waiting at
the house of Tejas i.e. residence of P.W.2 – Gitaben
Bachubhai Gamit. The said witness has also stated that
there is no backdoor entry in the house of P.W.2 - Gitaben
Bachubhai Gamit; and that there is only one door at the
front side.
8.7 In view of the aforesaid fact, the Sessions Court
Page 10 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
has held that when the elders and others were there in the
house, it cannot be believed that the accused had come to
meet P.W.2 - Gitaben and had threatened her and had
physical relation with her when the entire village was
anxiously waiting for deceased – Tejas outside the house.
Therefore, the Sessions Court has rightly not considered the
version of P.W.2 – Gitaben Bachubhai Gamit, wherein she
has stated that the accused himself had informed her that he
has the custody of her son – Tejas. The prosecution has also
not proved that the accused was found near the Well, where
the dead body was found or that anybody had seen the
accused near the Well where the dead body was found. The
prosecution has also not been able to prove the ‘last seen
theory’. The fact remains that when the son - Tejas was
missing, her mother Gitaben (P.W.2) also did not inform to
any of the family members about the said fact. Such
demeanor of Gitaben – P.W.2, who is a mother of the
deceased – Tejas, does not inspire confidence. There is also
no justification as to why Gitaben – P.W.2, a mother of the
deceased – Tejas, filed a complaint at a belated stage. There
is also no evidence of the presence of the accused near the
place where the dead body of the deceased was found. The
extra judicial confession of the accused also cannot be
believed in view of the fact that the evidence of P.W.2 –
Gitaben herself is doubtful. The prosecution has not been
Page 11 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
able to prove the fact that on 08.11.2001, the accused had
called Gitaben and had informed her about the said fact that
her son - Tejas is with him.
9.1 In the Case of State of Rajasthan V/s Bhanwar
Singh Etc. Etc. reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-SC 75937, the
Apex Court has observed in paragraph 39 as under:
“39. This Court in Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka,
(2024) 8 SCC 149, reiterated following
principles governing interference by the
appellate Court with a judgment of
acquittal:-
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt
that the scope of interference by an
appellate court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the
trial court in favour of the accused has
to be exercised within the four corners
of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal
suffers from patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and
Page 12 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
41.3. 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.
42. The appellate court, in order to
interfere with the judgment of acquittal
would have to record pertinent findings
on the above factors if it is inclined to
reverse the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the trial court.”
9.2 In the Case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar
and Others V/s State of Karnataka reported in 2024(0)
AIJEL-SC 73556, the Apex Court has observed in paragraphs
37, 38 and 39 as under:
“37. This Court in the case of Rajesh
Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another,
(2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the
legal position covering the field after
considering various earlier judgments
and held as below: -
“29. After referring to a catena of
judgments, this Court culled out the
following general principles regarding
Page 13 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
the powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order
of acquittal in the following words:
[ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
(2007) 4 SCC 415]
“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
Page 14 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
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 emphasize 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.
Page 15 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
(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.”.
38. Further, in the case of H.D.
Sundara & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court
summarized the principles governing the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal
under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -
“8.1.The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of
innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing
an appeal against acquittal, is entitled
to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding
an appeal against acquittal, after re-
appreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the
trial court is a possible view which
Page 16 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
could have been taken on the basis of
the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible
view, the appellate court cannot
overturn the order of acquittal on the
ground that another view was also
possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere
with the order of acquittal only if it
comes to finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the
basis of the evidence on record was
that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and
no other conclusion was possible.”
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt
that the scope of interference by an
appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court in favour of the accused has
to be exercised within the four corners
of the following principles:-
(a) That the judgment of acquittal
suffers from patent perversity;
Page 17 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
(b) That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record;
(c) 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.”
9.3 In the Case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund V/s
State of Madhra Pradesh, reported in 2024(0) AIJEL-SC
73457, the Apex Court has observed in paragraph 9 as
under:
“9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that
the present case is a case of reversal of
acquittal. The law with regard to
interference by the Appellate Court is very
well crystallized. Unless the finding of
acquittal is found to be perverse or
impossible, interference with the same
would not be warranted. Though, there are
a catena of judgments on the issue, we
will only refer to two judgments which the
High Court itself has reproduced in the
impugned judgment, which are as
reproduced below:
"13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs.
Page 18 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the
Supreme Court has held that:-
"In an appeal against acquittal where the
presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused is reinforced, the appellate Court
would interfere with the order of acquittal
only when there is perversity of fact and !
aw. However, we believe that the
paramount consideration of the Court is to
do substantial justice and avoid
miscarriage of justice which can arise by
acquitting the accused who is guilty of an
offence. A miscarriage of justice that may
occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no
less than from the conviction of an
innocent. Appellate Court, while
enunciating the principles with regard to
the scope of powers of the appellate Court
in an appeal against acquittal, has no
absolute restriction in law to review and
relook the entire evidence on which the
order of acquittal is founded."
14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala
Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC
665 , the Supreme Court has held that:-
"No doubt, where, on appreciation of
Page 19 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
evidence on record, two views are possible,
and the trial court has taken a view of
acquittal, the appellate court should not
interfere with the same. However, this
does not mean that in all the cases where
the trial court has recorded acquittal, the
same should not be interfered with, even
if the view is perverse. Where the view
taken by the trial court is against the
weight of evidence on record, or perverse,
it is always open far the appellate court
to express the right conclusion after
reappreciating the evidence If the charge
is proved beyond reasonable doubt on
record, and convict the accused."
10. 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.
11. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial
Page 20 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
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.
12. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the
judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
“… This court has observed in Girija
Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the
view of the trial court on the evidence to
repeat the narration of the evidence or to
reiterate the reasons given by the trial
Page 21 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
court expression of general agreement with
the reasons given by the Court the decision
of which is under appeal, will ordinarily
suffice.”
13. 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.
14. 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
Page 22 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
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."
15. 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.
16. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
Page 23 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
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
Page 24 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
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
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court.”
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the 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
Page 25 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
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.”
18. 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.
19. In view of above facts and circumstances of the
case, on our careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, we
found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the
Page 26 of 27
R/CR.A/516/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026
findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under
the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly
acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons
stated in the impugned judgment and we also endorse the
view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the
acquittal.
20. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case
and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed,
accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the
concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
SRILATHA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: SRILATHA VENKATARAO UPADHYAYULA(HC00185), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/01/2026 17:24:33
Page 27 of 27
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "appeal against acquittal"Sign in to search