Holding

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the offence of abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 114 IPC.

Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal of Jasubhai Mangabhai Patel and another under Sections 306 r/w 114 IPC, alleging they abetted the suicide of Kiritbhai. The prosecution relied on alleged threats recorded in the deceased's diary and writings on his shirt, but the trial court found the handwriting evidence unreliable and noted inconsistencies, including the lack of a specimen handwriting for comparison and doubts about the shirt's custody. The court also highlighted alternative explanations for the suicide, such as a prior criminal complaint against the deceased. The appellate court examined the evidence, found the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of abetment beyond reasonable doubt, and affirmed the trial court’s order of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal and the accompanying revision application were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the elements of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and Section 114 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the handwriting evidence on the deceased's shirt and diary was admissible and reliable.
Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or affected by any legal error warranting interference.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 209, s. 378
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 114, s. 306

Subjects

abetment of suicideSection 306 IPCSection 114 IPCpresumption of innocenceburden of proofhandwriting evidenceacquittalcriminal appealevidentiary standardsCode of Criminal Procedure

Judgment

R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1199 of 2008
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 127 of 2008

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JASUBHAI MANGABHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR JV VAGHELA(5809) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
YUKTA SUMARA FOR MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 24/06/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant-State has preferred this appeal under
Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2007 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Sessions
Case No. 18 of 2007whereby the trial Court has acquitted the
original accused-respondents from the offence punishable
under Sections 306 r/w Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter be referred to as the “IPC”).

Page 1 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the
complainant, Maheshbhai, had four brothers, namely
Dilipbhai, Chinubhai, Maheshbhai (complainant), and
Kiritbhai. Kiritbhai was married to Jasumatiben, daughter of
Naranbhai Chaturbhai Patel, resident of Jagatpur, Taluka
Dascroi. They had two children, Sonal (aged 5 years) and
Vishal (aged 2 years), and were residing at Borkuva near the
complainant.

2.1 On 08.12.2005 at about 9:00 p.m., Kiritbhai went to the
agricultural field for irrigation work. At about 2:00 a.m. on the
night of 08/09.12.2005, agricultural labourer Somabhai
informed the complainant that Kiritbhai had consumed poison
and his condition was critical. The complainant and his
brother Chinubhai rushed to the field and found Kiritbhai
unconscious. He was immediately taken to Dr. Ramanbhai G.
Patel’s hospital, where he died during treatment.

2.2 The prosecution further alleged that the respondents were
harassing and ill-treating Kiritbhai regarding the share in the
sale proceeds of his father-in-law’s land, due to which he
committed suicide by consuming poison. Accordingly, the
complainant lodged FIR being C.R. No. I-190/2005 at Dabhoda
Police Station.

2.3 After investigation and recording statements of witnesses,
the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against the

Page 2 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

respondents for offences punishable under Sections 306 and
114 of the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Gandhinagar. As the offences were triable exclusively
by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar under
Section 209 of the Cr.P.C.

2.4 The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The
prosecution examined 14 oral and 21 documentary evidence
in support of its case. After appreciation of the evidence, the
learned trial Court by judgment and order dated 20.12.2007,
acquitted the respondents of all charges.

2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the appellant has
preferred present appeal.

3. Heard Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned APP for the appellant State
and Ms. Yukta Sumara, learned counsel for Mr. R.J. Goswami,
learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned APP for the appellant has submitted that the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial
Court is contrary to law, evidence on record, and principles of
justice, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.
She has submitted that the acquittal is based on unwarranted
inferences and presumptions not permissible in law. The
learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and

Page 3 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

documentary evidence on record, which clearly establishes
direct and circumstantial evidence connecting the
respondents with the alleged offences under Sections 306,
and 114 of the IPC.

4.1 Learned APP submitted that the learned trial Court failed
to properly appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses,
including Maheshbhai Jivabhai Patel (Exh.11), Naranbhai
Chaturbhai (Exh.22), Dr. Mukeshbhai Becharbhai Patel
(Exh.23), Chhanabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel (Exh.25),
Amratbhai Badarbhai Dantani (Exh.42), and Investigating
Officer Ranjitsinh Dashrathsinh Dabhi (Exh.46), all of whom
support the prosecution case.

4.2 Learned APP submitted that learned Trial Court also failed
to properly appreciate the panchnamas and documentary
evidence at Exhs. 16, 18, 20, 21, and 24, which support the
case regarding the suicide and surrounding circumstances.
The learned trial Court erred in ignoring evidence relating to
threats allegedly given by the respondents to the deceased,
which amounted to cruelty and abetment. The learned trial
Court committed error in holding that the prosecution failed
to prove abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 114 of
the IPC.

4.3 Learned APP urges before the Court that present appeal
may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal may be quashed and set aside.

Page 4 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Trial Court is legal, just, and proper
and has been passed after thorough appreciation of the oral
as well as documentary evidence available on record. The
learned Trial Court has assigned cogent, convincing, and well-
reasoned findings while acquitting the respondents–accused,
and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled
against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of
the alleged offences and has not produced reliable,
trustworthy, and corroborative evidence connecting the
respondents with the commission of the alleged offence.

5.2 It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
presumption of innocence in favour of an accused is further
strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the findings
recorded by the Trial Court are shown to be perverse, illegal,
or contrary to the evidence on record, the Appellate Court
should be slow in interfering with an order of acquittal.

5.3 It is submitted that the appellant has failed to point out
any infirmity, illegality, perversity, or misreading of evidence
in the impugned judgment and order. The findings recorded
by the learned Trial Court are based upon proper appreciation
of the evidence and settled legal principles.

Page 5 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

5.4 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
submitted that the present appeal is devoid of merits and
deserves to be dismissed. The impugned judgment and order
of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court therefore
deserves to be confirmed.

6. I have perused the relevant documents and material placed
on record. I have also gone through the record and
proceedings of the appeal as well as the impugned judgment
and order passed by the trial Court.

7. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed
by the trial Court, as well as the evidence recorded by the
trial Court, including the testimony of the complainant, P.W.-
1, Maheshbhai Jivabhai Patel (Exh. 11), who is the brother of
the deceased, it emerges that the complainant lodged the
complaint on the day following the incident. According to the
complaint, during the night of 08.12.2005, in the early hours
of 09.12.2005, the deceased consumed a poisonous substance.
The information regarding the incident was conveyed by
Somabhai, an agricultural labourer employed in the field of
the deceased, Kiritbhai. Since the complainant, the deceased,
and their other brother were residing in their respective
agricultural fields situated in close proximity to each other,
Somabhai immediately rushed to the complainant's residence
and informed him about the incident.

8. Upon receiving the information, the complainant rushed to
the place of occurrence and found his brother lying
unconscious on the floor. Then the deceased was immediately

Page 6 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

shifted to a doctor, where he was provided preliminary
treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to the Civil Hospital
for further treatment. However, during the course of
treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 10.12.2005. It has
come on record that throughout the intervening period of
approximately two and a half days, the deceased remained
unconscious and never regained consciousness before his
death.

9. The entire prosecution case rests substantially upon certain
writings found on the shirt of the deceased and in his diary.
On a perusal of one of the pages of the diary, it appears that
the deceased had recorded that on the previous day, i.e.,
07.12.2005, he had received a telephone call from accused
No. 1, during which accused No. 1 allegedly extended threats
and warned him of dire consequences. The evidence on record
further reveals that there existed longstanding animosity
between the family of the deceased's father-in-law and the
accused persons. The dispute pertained to agricultural land,
which was allegedly in the possession and cultivation of the
accused and had been sold without informing the concerned
person, pursuant to which a transaction had been executed.
According to the prosecution, it was on account of this dispute
that accused No. 1 allegedly threatened the deceased with
dire consequences.

10. According to the prosecution, it was on account of the
aforesaid threats that the deceased consumed a poisonous
substance. However, upon a perusal of the evidence adduced
by the prosecution, particularly with regard to the alleged

Page 7 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

handwriting of the deceased and the report of the handwriting
expert, a fundamental defect in the prosecution case becomes
apparent. The admitted specimen handwriting of the deceased
was never obtained or forwarded to the handwriting expert
for comparison with the alleged writings found on the shirt of
the deceased or in the diary. Consequently, the alleged
writings were never scientifically compared with any admitted
handwriting of the deceased so as to establish their
authorship.

11. In fact, the police obtained the specimen signatures and
handwriting of the complainant for the purpose of
comparison. The diary and other relevant documents, which
were produced by the complainant and alleged to belong to
the deceased, were forwarded for examination. Significantly,
the diary was produced by the complainant only on the third
day after the incident. The evidence further reveals that the
complainant had retrieved the diary from the cupboard of the
deceased without the knowledge of, or intimation to, the wife
of the deceased, Kiritbhai.

12. The conduct of the complainant has also been noticed by
the trial Court. Although the wife of the deceased was present
in the house at the relevant time, neither the complainant nor
Somabhai Makabhai informed her about the incident. Instead,
they immediately shifted the deceased to the hospital without
informing her. Likewise, Somabhai Makabhai, upon noticing
that the deceased had allegedly consumed a poisonous
substance, did not inform the wife of the deceased but instead
went directly to the complainant and informed him of the

Page 8 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

incident. These circumstances create a serious doubt
regarding the prosecution's version of events and cast a
shadow on the credibility of its case.

13. Even on a bare perusal of the evidence of the prosecution
witness, Somabhai Makabhai, who was working as an
agricultural labourer in the field of the complainant,
Maheshbhai, it emerges that a criminal complaint had earlier
been registered against the deceased, Kiritbhai, alleging that
he had committed rape upon the wife of one Bhagabhai, who
was also working with him. In these circumstances, the
prosecution story gives rise to a serious doubt as to whether
the deceased, being under mental stress or depression on
account of the said criminal allegation, consumed the
poisonous substance to avoid the consequences of that case,
or whether he consumed the poison because of the alleged
threats extended by the present respondents. The prosecution
has failed to place any material before the Court to clarify this
aspect. Consequently, it appears that the prosecution has
suppressed the true genesis of the incident and has not
approached the Court with the complete and correct facts.

14. Furthermore, there are material inconsistencies in the
prosecution evidence regarding the shirt allegedly worn by
the deceased. The complainant deposed that the deceased
was wearing a white-coloured shirt. However, the handwriting
expert, who examined the shirt containing the alleged
writings, specifically noted that the shirt was not white in
colour. The prosecution has also failed to establish through
cogent evidence as to who removed the shirt from the body of

Page 9 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

the deceased or at what stage it came into the custody of the
investigating agency. These unexplained circumstances create
serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the alleged
writings found on the shirt and substantially weaken the
prosecution case. The learned trial Court, upon an overall
appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly disbelieved the
prosecution version and extended the benefit of doubt to the
accused.

15. Upon a careful perusal of the oral as well as the
documentary evidence on record, it is evident that the learned
trial Court rightly rejected the prosecution case, as the
prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. After considering all the relevant
facts and appreciating the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses in its proper perspective, the trial Court has
assigned cogent and convincing reasons for disbelieving the
prosecution case and for acquitting the present respondents
of the charges levelled against them.

16. In my considered opinion, the findings recorded by the
learned trial Court are in consonance with the facts of the
case and are fully supported by the evidence on record. The
trial Court has meticulously evaluated the entire evidence
before arriving at its conclusions. The impugned judgment has
been passed upon a proper appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, and I do not find any illegality,
infirmity, perversity, or material irregularity in the findings
recorded therein so as to warrant interference by this Court.

17. At this stage it is appropriate to refer the provisions of

Page 10 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

Section 306 and 107 of the IPC which are reproduced
hereunder :

Section 306- Abetment of suicide.—

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

Section 107-Abetment of a thing.—

A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

(First)— Instigates any person to do that thing; or

(Secondly)— Engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or

(Thirdly)— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.— A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by
wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

18. The Hon’ble Apex Cout has time and again clarified the
fact with regard to the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. It is
worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Nipun Aneja and others Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 654 of
2017 dated 03.10.2024, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held and observed in para – 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 as
under:-
“17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and
another reported in (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the

Page 11 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of
abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:-

“14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal
offence and prescribes punishment for the same.

....

15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to
bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This
Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC
618, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under:-

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”.”

16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its corelation
with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court.
In the case of S.S. Cheena Vs. 12 Crl.A.654/2017 Vijay Kumar
Mahajan and Anr (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed as under:-

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention
of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the
Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must
have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he committed suicide.”

18. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its
Inspector of Police reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining
the necessary ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail,
observed as under:-

“7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306
I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid
or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the
accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive
language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide.
There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused
intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide
are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306
IPC.”

19. This Court in Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana
reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an

Page 12 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

accused under Section 306 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit
a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the
culpability. It was observed as under:-

“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof
of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of
suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of
suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex
attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case
of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking
for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there be such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending
action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a
person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or
not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of
each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if
the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide.
As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above
referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide
had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise
not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused
guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct
creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other
option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-
corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in
tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which
eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may
be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on
the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the
acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a
particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was
provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide.
Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour,
each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while
taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the
actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”

Page 13 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector
of Police reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, Criminal Appeal
No. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring
to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability
under Section 306 of the IPC observed as under:-

“44. …It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts
of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without their 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, conviction
in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”

19. In these circumstances, the trial Court was justified in
concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the
ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and,
therefore, rightly recorded an order of acquittal.

20. On perusal of the record of the appeal, it transpires that
the respondents-accused have established their innocence
before the learned Trial Court and that, after due appreciation
of the oral as well as documentary evidence and other
material placed on record, the learned Trial Court has rightly
passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are just, proper
and in accordance with the settled principles of law and,
therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.

21. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the 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

Page 14 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

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, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.

22. Further, 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. 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 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 find
out whether the accused are connected with the commission
of the crime with which he is charged.

23. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of

Page 15 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly
paragraph Nos. 42 and 43, which was subsequently re-
affirmed 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, I am in complete agreement with the findings
recorded by the trial Court.

24. 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 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.

Page 16 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

(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 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.

(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.

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 firm 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 was further observed that, in an appeal
against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High
Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses
and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their
testimony. This was identified 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 benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”

25. 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.

Page 17 of 18
R/CR.A/1199/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026

26. 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.

27. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of
merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is
dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application
preferred by the original complainant also stands dismissed.
The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial
Court forthwith.

Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/07/2026 17:18:12

Page 18 of 18