R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 978 of 1998

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==========================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

✔

==========================================

STATE OF GUJARAT

Versus

CHHATRASING JETUSING @ SADRUBHA JETHUJI THAKORE & ORS.

==========================================

Appearance:

MS JYOTI BHATT ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1

HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.

1,10,11,12,2,3,4,8,9

MR HD CHUDASAMA(234) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.

5,6,7

MR P B KHAMBHOLJA(5730) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.

1,10,11,12,2,3,4,8,9

==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 17/07/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)

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 30.07.1998 passed by the learned

Page 1 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur (hereinafter be referred to as “the

trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.48 of 1997, whereby the trial Court

has acquitted the original accused (respondents herein) from the

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 325,

120(B), 201 etc of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter be referred to

as “the IPC”] and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2.Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.05.1996, in

the midnight at Village: Andhariya, Taluka: Vadgam, step mother-in-

law namely Menba of the complainant Naniben had quarreled with her

husband Jorsing Ratansing on account of drinking liquor and she was

beaten her husband and step mother also demanded share in the

land, due to which the accused including Menba had beaten the

husband – Siddharajsing and hence, he sustained fatal injury and

succumbed to the injury and the complainant and his brother-in-law

also sustained injury. Hence, a complaint was lodged by the

complainant before Palanpur City Police Station for the aforesaid

offences. The police prepared panchnama of the scene of offence and

inquest panchnama etc and after preparing the arrest panchnama,

the accused came to be arrested. On completion of investigation,

charge sheet was submitted into the Court of learned J.M.F.C.

2.1The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial

Court vide Exhibit 3 for the aforesaid offences against the accused.

On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having

committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge

and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge.

3.It appears from the records that to prove the case, the

prosecution has examined the following witnesses.

Page 2 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

P.W. No. Name of Witnesses Exhibit

1 Dr. Bhikhabhai Kohajibhai 18

2 Naniben Siddhrajsing 22

3 Mafatbhai Halabhai 25

4 Jaluba Jorsing 29

5 Bhikhabhai Rajabhai 31

6 Bhagwansing Jorsing Thakor 37

7 Dolji Motiji Barad 40

8 Gobarsing Agarsing 42

9 Mohanji Lalji 46

10Pruthviraj Chhaganji Thakor 47

11Bhikhaji Kaluji 48

12Pravin Dharmabhai Shrimali 49

13Laxman Parathibhai 50

14Savaji Fataji Solanki 51

15Bhikhabhai Rajabhai Nai 52

16Dhegabhai Masharubhai 53

17Dhanesinh Ajitsinh 54

18Jayantibhai Dhudabhai Parmar 70

4.In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the

following documentary evidence.

Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit

1Postmortem Note 19

2Medical Certificate 20

3Yadi sent to Medical Officer 21

4Inquest Panchnama 23

5Seizure Panchnama 24

6Complaint 26

Page 3 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

7Yadi sent to Police Sub Inspector 27

8Copy of register entry 28

9Panchnama of the scene of offence dated

30.05.1996

41

10Panchnama dated 31.05.1996 43

11Police report 55

12Yadi sent to Police Sub Inspector 56

13Yadi sent to Police Sub Inspector 57

14Receipt 58

15Panchnama dated 31.05.1996 59

16Panchnama dated 31.05.1996 60

17Panchnama dated 01.06.1996 62

18Panchnama dated 01.06.1996 63

19Panchnama dated 04.06.1996 64

20Panchnama dated 03.06.1996 66

21Letter (F.S.L.) 67

22Forwarding Note 68

23F.S.L. Report 69

5.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 offence and

have stated that they are innocent.

6.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.

7.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment

and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred

this appeal.

Page 4 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

8.Heard Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.H. D. Chudasama, learned counsel

and Mr.P. B. Khambholja, learned counsel for the resective

respondents – accused at length.

9.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, 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

offence in its proper perspective and even the prosecution has been

able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. While

referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the material collected

against the accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

submitted that the prosecution has established the case against the

accused by examining the witnesses, who have supported the case of

the prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and

disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses. She has submitted that

the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution,

however, the trial Court has not appreciated the same and passed the

judgment and order of acquittal which is illegal and unjust. She has

submitted that it is settled legal position that the evidence of a single

witness is sufficient for conviction if the same is reliable and

trustworthy and in the present case, though the evidence of all the

witnesses are reliable and trustworthy, without any cogent reason,

Page 5 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

the trial Court has disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the

witnesses.

9.1Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 and the findings recorded by

the learned Trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in law, thereby

calling for interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate

jurisdiction. She has also submitted that the learned Trial Court has

materially erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its

case beyond reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by the trial

Court were therefore perverse, illegal, and contrary to the evidence

on record.

9.2Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the

accused has formed unlawful assembly with an intention to commit

the murder of deceased Siddhrajsing by their respective weapons like

Swords, Dharia, Sticks, Knife and Dhoka etc. and they have assaulted

upon the complainant – Naniba and thereby Bhavansing and Jaluben

sustained injury and have tried to destroy the evidence. She has

submitted that the accused – Jaswantsing inflicted blow of Stick,

accused – Chhatrasing inflicted bow of Dharia, accused Odharsing

inflicted blow of Knife, accused – Menba inflicted blow of sword,

accused Jorsing inflicted blow of Dharia and other accused inflicted

with their respective weapons. She has submitted that the trial Court

has not properly appreciated the evidence of Naniben, Bharatsing

Ishwarsing, Bhagwansing and Jaluba and thereby committed an error

in acquitting the accused for the alleged offence. She has submitted

that the accused ought to have convicted on the basis of the evidence

Page 6 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

of Dr. Bhikhabhai who examined at Exhibit 18 and this doctor

performed the postmortem of deceased and issued death certificate

of the deceased and also stated that the injuries as stated in the

postmortem note were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause

the death of the deceased. She has also submitted that the trial Court

has not appreciated the evidence of the complainant – Naniba, who

stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, a mob of 10 – 12

persons rushed including the accused Chhatrasing inflicted blow of

Dharia on the head of deceased and other persons inflicted blows of

sticks. She has submitted that the respondents have committed a

breach of Notification issued under the Bombay Police Act by the

District Magistrate and thereby committed an offence under Section

135 of the Bombay Police Act and it is also a settled legal position that

the evidence of the injured witnesses should be believed in its true

and proper spirit.

9.3According to 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.

10.Per contra, both learned counsel for the respondents – accused

have supported the impugned judgment and order and has submitted

that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and fact in

acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. They

have submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged against the

accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the

trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as the complainant has

failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. They have

also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to connect the

Page 7 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

accused with the alleged crime in question. They have submitted that

the evidence led by the prosecution suffers from material

contradictions, omissions, and inconsistencies, which create serious

doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and the prosecution

has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences

and has not produced reliable, trustworthy, and corroborative

evidence connecting the respondent with the commission of the

alleged offence. They have submitted that 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. It is

submitted that 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. 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 and the findings recorded by the

learned trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of the

evidence and settled legal principles. Learned counsel for the

respondents has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves

to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal

deserves to be confirmed.

10.1In support of his submissions, Mr.Chudasama, learned counsel

for the respondents has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of

Gujarat reported in (1996) 9 SCC 225 and P. Somaraju Vs. State

of Andra Pradesh reported in (2026) 1 SCC (Cri.) 65.

11.On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal

passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as

Page 8 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

under:-

(1)whether the trial Court has rightly justified in passing the

judgment and order of acquittal.

(2)whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral as well

as documentary evidence led by the prosecution in recording

the reasons.

(3)whether there are any illegality, irregularity and perversity in

the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

12.Considering the above referred averments and issues arising in

the present appeal, let first examine the facts of the case. That on

28.05.1996 at bout 1.30 a.m i.e. midnight of 28

th

May and early hours

of 29

th

May, the complainant Nimaben along with her husband namely

Sidhdhrajsing, her sister-in-law, her brother-in-law namely

Bhagwansing Jorsing Thakor were sleeping under the beneath a nim

tree at their agricultural field at that time accused persons including

the father, step mother of the deceased and other relatives of the

step mother have assaulted the husband of the complainant and in

the result, Sidhdhrajsing sustained the injury and succumbed to the

injury. The complainant along with her brother-in-law sustained

injuries at the hands of the accused. It appears from the record that

the prosecution has examined eighteen witnesses including the

medical officer and the police personnel and also led the

documentary evidence. It reveals from the record that the twelve

accused have inflicted the blows by their respective weapons to the

deceased. Now on perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 wife of the

deceased, it appears that she alleged that on account of an

agriculture field of her father-in-law, accused No.3 being step mother

of the deceased was demanding share from the land of P.W.4 i.e. real

Page 9 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

father of the deceased and in the result, the family members of

accused No.3 have hatched conspiracy and formed an unlawful

assembly have reached at the resident of the deceased in the

midnight who happened to be the son of accused No.4. This witness

has stated that she along with her husband and sister-in-law sleeping

on different cots under the beneath a nim tree, when she woke up

due to screaming and shouting, she found that her husband was lying

in injured condition and blood was oozing from the back of his head.

This witness has further stated that when she screamed and shouted

for help, her sister-in-law was running at the place and accused have

chased two witnesses. From the evidence of P.W.2, it appears that in

her chief examination, this witness had given detail about the incident

in question, whereas, in her cross-examination, she deposed

completely contrary version and not supported her own case.

13.In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that she had taken

her husband to the Civil Hospital at around one or two o'clock. When

she brought her husband to the Palanpur Civil Hospital, hers husband

had already died. The treatment for the injuries she had sustained

was done by the doctor during the night. It must have taken about

five to ten minutes to treat her, and she was in the hospital itself until

she lodged the complaint. In the morning, many people from their

village had come, and at night as well, many people had come. It is

true that, Bhagvansing, her brother-in-law (Devar), was also with her.

She has stated that five children were born to Menba from her father-

in-law, out of which one is a son and four are daughters. It is true that,

second marriage of her father-in-law Jorsing took place at Antroli

village, and from that marriage as well, a daughter was born to her

father-in-law, who is alive. That daughter as well as her mother both

reside in Antroli village. This witness has two agricultural fields; there

Page 10 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

is no well. She cultivated the land. It is not true that, quarreled used

to take place between Menba and me regarding that land. It is not

true that, Menba used to quarrel with me stating that, she wanted a

share in the land. It is not true that, she had stated in her statement

before the police on 30/05/1996 that, "Menba quarreled with them

saying give the share of the land." This land belongs to her father-in-

law Jorsing's ancestors. Menba cultivated this land. There are two

fields, out of which they cultivated one field and Menba cultivated the

other field. Menba cultivated the field that was on the way towards

the (Illegible) side from the village, and she had never stopped

Menbaa from cultivating that field. It is true that, no quarrel has ever

taken place between Menba and herself regarding the land. Her

father-in-law Jorsing has not had any quarrel with them regarding the

land. It has never happened that, Jorsing quarreled demanding a

share of the land. She has been residing in Andhariya village for eight

years. She stated that, during that period of eight years, no dispute

has taken place between us and Jorsing and Menba regarding the

land. It is true that, while going from Palanpur to Ambaji, ther village

came towards the Antroli village. Andhariya village is two-three km

away from the road. There was an approach road leading to their

village from the road going to Ambaji. Their houses were situated in

the village, which were on one side. While entering the village, the

first house was them. Their house has been constructed on

wasteland; it has not been constructed in an agricultural field. The

houses of other brothers of Jorsing were situated in the village. The

houses of Rajusing Magansing and Babusing Magansing were not on

wasteland. Their houses were situated near the well and their well

was situated opposite our house on the eastern side. The village lies

to the west of their house. After their house, there is a road, and

thereafter the houses of the village begin. The houses situated at the

Page 11 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

beginning of the village belong to the people of her caste i.e. Darbar.

There were approximately 200 houses of Darbar. In which there were

ten houses of her family and the rest were from their Mohalla. There

were four houses of their Mohalla and rest of the houses were of other

Darbar families. There was no other road other than the road to reach

Ambaji road from Andhariya. She has no knowledge that whether the

road leading to Andhariya village from Ambaji road ends in Andhariya

village or not. Saku village situated to the North of their village. After

leaving the road from her house, the house of her father in law

namely Jorsing situated. No quarrel used to occur between her

mother-in-law and father-in-law. She has never heard of any quarrel

between her mother-in-law and father-in-law. Her father-in-law never

told her that he had a quarrel with his wife. Menba used to tell her

that “her husband beaten her.” Now She stated that, her mother-in-

law never came to her to tell about quarrel. She did not know that,

whether two years ago, before this incident occurred, Siddharajsing

inflicted a cut wound on the hand of Menba by hitting her and

regarding which a complaint was lodged by Menbaa against her

husband in Vadgaam Police Station or not? It is not true that her

husband inflicted a blow of axe on the head of Jorsing regarding which

Jorsing filed a case in Vadgaam Police Station against my husband.

She did not know that both the cases were pending in the Court at

Palanpur and she also did not know that her husband used to attend

the hearing dates in this cases. It is not true that two cases regarding

liquor has been filed against her husband. It is not true that, the cases

were pending in the Court at Palanpur. It is not true that, a case

against her husband is filed for spilling all the milk belonging to a

person of their village from Raval community while taking it to the

Dairy. It has occurred that Jetusing inflicted a blow to the chest of my

husband with a stick and Jetusing is the father of accused Chhatrasing

Page 12 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

and Odharsing. Jetusing inflicted a blow of stick on the leg of her

brother-in-law, Bhagvansing and blows of sticks were inflicted

repeatedly, Odharsing inflicted a blow of stick on her. Odharsing had

two weapons - knife and stick and Odharsing did not inflict any blow

of knife on her. Jetusing was only having a stick with him and other

than that he did not hit anything. She has also stated in the complaint

that, Jetusing inflicted a blow of stick on her husband. They were

hitting her husband on all over his body. Jetusing did not hit her sister

in law. This witness has stated that Karansing and Gambhirsing were

empty handed and both of them had called the other accused, who

were her relatives. She has not seen the house of Karansing and she

has already seen Karansing and the age of Karansing was

approximately 30 to 35 years. She has seen Karansing about two to

three years ago while passing by. She did not know the name of the

father of Karansing. Karansing and Gambhirsing were provoking

everyone in this incident. She did not see if they were having scythe

with them or not and she has not stated in the complaint that

Gambhirsing and Karansing were having scythe with them but she

stated their names in the complaint. After stating the complaint she

came to know that she has falsely dictated the names of Karansing,

Jetusing and Gambhirsing. It is true that, Police informed her that

there was no person named Karansing, when She stated the name of

Karansing in her complaint and that’s why she informed Police that

she had falsely dictated the name of Karansing.

14.It appears that the said fact has not been supported by the

evidence of P.W.4. Except for these two witnesses, none of the

independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It

also appears from the record that the panchas have not supported the

case of the prosecution and declared hostile and, therefore, the

Page 13 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

panchnama of the recovery and panchnama of the scene of

occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. Surprisingly,

P.W.6 who happened to be the brother of the deceased and also slept

in the veranda of the house, was shown to be an injured witness.

15.On perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.2, it reveals that

this witness has specifically stated that she has given only four names

of the accused and remaining names were given by the villagers and

all the names of the assailants given by the P.W.2 without actually

knowing their names. One of the person shown to be the accused had

died before about ten years, however, she had referred the name of

that deceased person as an assailant and then she realized that the

said person died prior to the date of incident, she had named that

accused because of the villagers. Considering the material on record

and the the injury sustained on the body of the deceased, it appears

that the only head injury was caused by some heavy weapon which

was proved to be fatal in nature, otherwise, no correspondence injury

was found on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was

mentioned by the doctor was proved to be fatal. But if the twelve

accused were simultaneously inflicting the blows by sticks, sword,

dharia, and other iron pipes then there was every possibility that

there were multiple injury found on the body of the deceased but the

same were not found. Whereas, in her cross-examination, P.W.2 has

completely washed out the story of the prosecution more particularly

in paras – 15, 16, 17 and 18, which does not inspire any confidence.

Considering the fact that at the time of drawing the panchnama of the

scene of offence, only one cot was found in the house and on the said

cot, one quilt was sprayed over with the blood then the rest of the two

cots as per the case of the complainant the blood was not found at

the place. From the records, it emerges that whether there was any

Page 14 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

electricity available at the residence because the incident occurred in

the midnight and looking to the panchnama of the place of offence,

there was no mention of electricity and none of the witnesses had

referred about the electricity then there were possibility that the

complainant could not identify all twelve accused except accused

No.3 and 4 since they were being father-in-law and mother-in-law of

the complainant. So far as the dispute with regard to the land is

concerned, there is no material come forth on record and the dispute

between the father and son as the father-in-law of the complainant

resided next to the house of the deceased and near the vicinity 6 – 7

people resided in their house constructed in their respective

agriculture field. However, Neither the statements the nearby

witnesses have been recorded nor examined as witnesses in the

present case. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it

appears that the trial Court has observed the relevant findings from

para 5 to para 16 and discussed at length and appreciated the

evidence of those witnesses. It also appears that the trial Court has

rightly observed that the evidence led by the prosecution does not at

all inspired any confidence and except the P.W.2, her sister-in-law,

none of the witnesses have thrown light on the incident in question.

Considering the evidence of P.W.6, it appears that when hewoke up,

he saw that his brother was lying in bleeding condition and he feared

that he would also be caused injury or killed by the accused and,

therefore, he was running away from the place and at that time,

accused ran and tried to chase the witnesses. The material

contradictions and omissions were proved through the evidence of

P.W.6. On examining the evidence of P.W.6, it emerges that he

admitted that the step mother is real aunt of the deceased and it was

the second marriage of his father with her matrimonial aunt since his

real mother died and before the incident, the deceased had already

Page 15 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

parted with the share and individual land to his step mother (masi). If

this Court considers the fact that when P.W.6 woke up, the incident of

causing injury to the deceased was already over and, therefore, he

has not seen the actual incident whereby the injury caused to the

deceased by whom and with which weapon and, therefore, the

depositions of the said three witnesses including P.W.3, P.W.4 and

P.W.6 is completely contrary and it does not inspire any confidence as

they are the interested witnesses and, therefore, their depositions

cannot be brushed aside on account of that they are interested or

family members of the deceased. Their evidence is required to be

examined and scrutinized as it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court that the quantity of the witnesses is not material or quality of

the witnesses is required to be considered as it was held by the

Hon’ble Apex Court that the realization on the testimony of the

witnesses is reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Jagdish Vs. State Of Haryana reported in (2019) 7 SCC 711. In

the case of Jagdish (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and

observed in para 8 as under:-

“8.For appreciating the rival submissions, it will be

apposite to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and

3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, which read thus:

“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—

(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or

a Scheduled Tribe,--

(a) ………………………………………………

(b) ………………………………………………

xxx xxx xxx

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to

humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled

Page 16 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Tribe in any place within public view;

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public

view;”

16.In the case where the Court has convicted the accused person,

while deciding the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered

the fact the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and on an

appreciation of evidence the prosecution story was found highly

improbable and inconsistent of ordinary course of human nature. It is

pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Inderjeet Singh Vs. State (Nct Of Delhi) reported in AIR

2020 SC 4894. The relevant headnote of this decision reads as

under:-

“(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 34, 302 - Arms Act, 1959 -

S. 27 - Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 3 - murder - conviction and

sentence - sustainability - testimony of sole eye witness,

who is a close relation of deceased - case primarily hinges

on testimony of sole eye witness, PW-1, brother of

deceased - assailants were only armed with hockey sticks

and a knife and not with any fire arms - testimony of PW-1

and also his conduct at time of incident - unnatural conduct

of PW-1 and PW-11 two brothers of deceased which have

noticed from record is that though they claim to be present

at time of occurrence but no attempt was made by them to

save their brother from assault, merely on threat extended

by assailants armed with hockey sticks and a knife - this

unnatural conduct totally against natural human behaviour

casts a serious doubt of shadow on presence of eye witness

on spot at time of occurrence - moreover facts stated by

PW-1 in this regard has not been corroborated by other

brother PW-11 - other unnatural conduct of two brothers

PW-1 and PW-11 just after incident again makes their

presence on spot extremely doubtful - there was a medical

clinic of just nearby place of incident and first endeavour of

two brothers would have been to take injured brother to

clinic for immediate medical aid or try and get some

medical aid from clinic but no efforts made to get medical

aid - it is highly unnatural that two real brothers made no

efforts to save life of third brother who was severely injured

Page 17 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

if they were present at place of incident - since there are

serious doubtful aspects in conduct of PW-1 and his conduct

does not appear to be natural it would not be safe to accept

his evidence without corroboration more particularly when

two other eye witnesses, one being a real brother of

deceased has turned hostile - there are inherent

improbabilities in prosecution story - conduct of eye witness

is inconsistent with ordinary course of human nature hence,

it would not be safe to convict appellants upon

uncorroborated testimony of sole eye witness - since,

prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of accused

beyond doubt appellants therefore must be given benefit of

doubt - impugned orders of Courts below set aside -

appellants are directed to be released forthwith unless

required in any other case - appeals allowed. (Para

19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,32,35)

(b) Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 134 - evidence - testimony of sole

eye witness - evidentiary value - as a general rule, Court can

and may act on testimony of single eye witness provided he

is wholly reliable - there is no legal impediment in convicting

a person on sole testimony of a single witness - that is logic

of S. 134 of Evidence Act - but if there are doubts about

testimony, Courts will insist on corroboration - it is not

number, quantity but quality that is material - time honoured

principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted

- on this principle stands edifice of S. 134 - test is whether

evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and

trustworthy or otherwise. (Para 16)”

17.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 infirmity found

in the judgment and order.

18.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

Page 18 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

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, reaffirmed and strengthened

by the trial Court.

19.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 they are charged.

20.The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka

Page 19 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

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, we are in complete

agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

21.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.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and

compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very

Page 20 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

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.

(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.”

22.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

Page 21 of 22

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the

alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the

evidence on record.

23.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.

24.In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and

it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is 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.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)

V.R. PANCHAL

Page 22 of 22