THE STATE OF GUJARATversusHASMUKHRAI G RAVAL

     R/CR.A/549/2008                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 549 of 2008


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                  Yes           No

==========================================================
                            THE STATE OF GUJARAT
                                    Versus
                          HASMUKHRAI G RAVAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NON BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                                Date : 12/08/2026

                                  JUDGMENT


1.      The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment and order dated 03.07.2007 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Rajkot (hereinafter
be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.100 of 1997,
whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused
(respondents herein) from the o2ences punishable under Sections
499, 500, 501, 502 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC”).


                                    Page 1 of 9
      R/CR.A/549/2008                            JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2026




1.1      In response to this Court’s order dated 01.07.2026, the learned
APP has received a report indicating that although a non-bailable
warrant has been issued against accused – Bharat Hasmukhrai Joshi,
he could not be found at the mentioned address and therefore, the
non-bailable warrant remained unexecuted. The report submitted by
the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Rajkot has been received and
taken on record.


2.        Short facts of the prosecution case are that the learned Public
Prosecutor, Rajkot =led a complaint before the Sessions Court, Rajkot
on 24.07.1997 pursuant to the GR dated 07.04.1997 under Section
199(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That, the respondent-accused
no.1 is the owner-cum-Editor of Nutan Saurashtra Dainik. That, on
08.11.1996, the news was published to the e2ect that higher o?cers
of the police department at the level of Police Commissioner are
taking bribes. It was published that the truck owners, rickshaw
owners, gambling house and illegal liquor manufacturers are the main
sources of income. That, it was alleged that Sanjeev Bhatt was
appointed as DCP and he stopped such illegal activities. That, the
professionals of lottery continued their illegal activities. That, there
was a con@ict between Police Commissioner and DCP. Rs.50 lacs were
paid and Rs. 50 lacs were likely to be paid. That, the accused faced a
trial being Sessions Case no. 100/1997 for the o2ences punishable
under Sections 500, 501, 502 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.


2.1      The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court vide Exhibit 59 for the aforesaid o2ences against the accused.
On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having
committed any o2ence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge


                                  Page 2 of 9
     R/CR.A/549/2008                             JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2026




and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot.


3.      It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary
evidences.


4.      After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any o2ence and
have stated that they are innocent.


5.      After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.


6.      Being aggrieved and dissatis=ed with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.


7.      Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat at length.


8.      Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which
are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the
prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary
evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. She has submitted that the prosecution has


                                 Page 3 of 9
      R/CR.A/549/2008                           JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2026




successfully proved the defamatory news in Nutan Saurashtra Dainik
by way of cross-examination of the complainant. Ms. Jhaveri, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, while referring to the entire oral as well
as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and
order and submitted that the trial Court has not taken into
consideration the evidence connecting the accused to the alleged
o2ence in its proper perspective and even the prosecution has been
able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. She has
further submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary
to the evidence on record, based on erroneous appreciation of
material evidence, and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The
=ndings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse and
unsustainable in law, thereby calling for interference by this Court.


8.1      According to Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have
imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present
appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal.


9.       I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the materials on record. The trial Court has framed the issues in
paragraph 7 and recorded the =ndings from para no. 9 onwards of its
impugned judgment. The trial Court has dealt with the evidence of
each witness in detail and, after considering the submissions of the
learned counsel for the respective parties, recorded its reasons from
paragraph 37 onwards of its impugned judgment. Upon perusal of the
reasons recorded by the trial Court and the decisions referred to by
the trial Court in paragraphs 47 to 50 of its impugned judgment, I am
in complete agreement with the =ndings recorded by the trial Court.


                                 Page 4 of 9
      R/CR.A/549/2008                            JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2026




In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not
committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned
judgment and order and there is no any illegality and in=rmity found
in the judgment and order.


10.      It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court 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 their innocence is further reinforced, rea?rmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.


11.      Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
=nding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while
exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has


                                  Page 5 of 9
      R/CR.A/549/2008                              JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2026




committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to =nd out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which they are charged.




12.      The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43, which was subsequently re-a?rmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in
[2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated
the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in
paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble
Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, we are in complete
agreement with the =ndings recorded by the trial Court.




13.      It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-


           “20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the


                                   Page 6 of 9
R/CR.A/549/2008                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2026




     general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa
     and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of
     the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a
     judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:

     “42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
     reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
     order of acquittal is founded.

     (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 su1cient 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 “2ourishes 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, rea1rmed 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 7nding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

     21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge
     Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential
     for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
     indicate 7rm and weighty grounds from the record for
     discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able
     to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It


                                Page 7 of 9
      R/CR.A/549/2008                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2026




           was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it
           would not be legally su1cient for the High Court to take a
           contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is
           absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
           7nds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject
           their testimony. This was identi7ed as the quintessence of
           the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this
           light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing
           with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant
           Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered
           judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the
           bene7t of doubt, cannot be sustained.”



14.      Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.




15.      On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.


16.      In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The



                                      Page 8 of 9
      R/CR.A/549/2008                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2026




impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is
hereby        con=rmed.           Bail      bond       stands        cancelled.         Record        and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.



                                                              (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/08/2026 17:35:15




                                                Page 9 of 9