IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

<>

ON THE 15

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2236 of 2016

<>

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Versus

NISAR MOHD AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Dayaram Vishwakarma - Govt.Advocate for appellant/State.

<>

Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena - Advocate for respondents.

<>

ORDER

<>

This appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State

assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.08.2015 passed in S.T.

No.49/2011(State of M.P. vs. Nisar Mohd. and others) by the learned Second

Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur (M.P.) whereby respondents/accused have

been acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

2

<>

. As per the prosecution case, the deceased Wasim was married to Shaheen in

the year 2008 at Manihari Mohalla, Chhattarpur. After the marriage, the in-laws of

the deceased used to frequently visit his house to take Shaheen with them;

however, the deceased did not permit her to leave the matrimonial home. On

15.10.2009, the brother of Shaheen, namely Riyaz, took her to Chhatarpur on the

pretext of attending his engagement ceremony, but thereafter did not send her

back to the matrimonial home of the deceased. Subsequently, Shaheen filed a

maintenance petition against the deceased and also initiated other legal

proceedings. It is further alleged that whenever the deceased went to his in-laws’

house to bring Shaheen back, she was not sent with him. On 14.10.2010, deceased

1 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

Wasim reached the house of his in-laws at Chhattarpur and committed suicide by

consuming a poisonous substance. Upon receipt of information, a Marg intimation

was registered and an inquest was conducted under Section 174 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

3.

<>

During the course of investigation, dead body of the deceased was duly

identified and a Panchnama was prepared. The postmortem examination of the

deceased was conducted, wherein the doctor opined that the cause of death was

consumption of poisonous substance. On lodging of the FIR, the criminal law was

triggered and set in motion.

4.

<>

After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the

competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the court of session

where the respondents/accused were tried.

5.

<>

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against the

accused in the charge sheet framed charge punishable under Section 306 of

IPC. The respondents abjured their guilt. They took the plea that they have been

falsely implicated in the matter and they claimed to be tried.

6

<>

. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 15

witnesses, which are Munnilal (PW-1), Dr. S.K.Gupta (PW-2), Maharaj Singh

(PW-3), Naeem Soudagar (PW-4), Rahil Soudagar (PW-5), Smt. Fajlun Nisha

(PW-6), Ramavtar Chorasiya (PW-7), Mod. Nawab (PW-8), Naseem Soudagar

(PW-9), Gopal Das (PW-10), Dr. B.M. Chourasiya (PW-11), Praveen Kumar

Singh (PW-12), J.D. Verma (PW-13), A.K. Poranik (PW-14) and Ashok Valmiki

(PW-15) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/31, documents on record.

<>

7

<>

. The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came

to hold that the allegations levelled against the accused are not found to be proved

and eventually acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charges under

2 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

Section 306 of IPC. Hence, this appeal.

8

<>

. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellant/State that the

learned trial Court has erroneously acquitted the respondents/accused persons,

despite the prosecution having adduced cogent and reliable evidence. From the

prosecution evidence on record, it is clearly revealed that the accused persons

exerted immense pressure upon the deceased and did not allow him to reside

peacefully with his wife. As a result of such continuous harassment and pressure,

the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. In this regard, document Ex.P/16,

which is a suicide note, was seized by the police. Keeping in view the suicide

note, coupled with the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the offence under

Section 306 of the IPC is clearly made out against the accused persons. The

suicide note was written by the deceased himself, which in fact stands duly

substantiated by the evidence of handwriting expert, K.K. Puranik (PW-14).

Hence, the acquittal of the accused persons is erroneous, unsustainable in law, and

liable to be set aside. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set

aside and by allowing the appeal and respondents/accused persons be convicted

and punished appropriately for the aforesaid offences.

9.

<>

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has

pointed out that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court are

based on a proper and judicious appreciation of the evidence on record and do not

suffer from any perversity, illegality, or infirmity. Consequently, the impugned

judgment of acquittal warrants no interference and deserves to be affirmed.

10

<>

. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

<>

11

<>

. As far as the cause of death, as to whether deceased Wasim committed

suicide or not, is concerned, the important witness is Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW-2), who

has stated that he has conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and

3 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

it is found that the cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest. But no reason of

such arrest could be explained. He cannot say that what has been consumed by

deceased. In cross-examination though, he has deposed that cardio respiratory

arrest may be caused by consuming poison, but no definite opinion could be given

by this witness in that respect. Though viscera has been saved and sent for

forensic analysis and Forensic report (Ex. P/ 31), indicates that there was

aluminum phosphate pesticides found in the viscera, but it is pertinent to mention

here that such report and its recital has not been explained to the accused persons

in examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In absence of putting

evidence/factum and recital of report before the accused persons in the

examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., such report cannot be helpful for the

prosecution.

12

<>

. Though the independent witnesses including Naeem (PW-4), Rahil (PW-5),

Smt.Fajlun Nisha (PW-6) and Naseem (PW-9) have stated that the deceased has

consumed some poisonous substance but they have not seen the deceased

consuming such poison nor any abstract of such poison or any vessel etc. used for

such poisonous substance has been seized. Thus, in the entirety of these facts and

circumstances of the case, even the fact that the deceased has committed suicide is

not established with the cogent and reliable evidence and beyond reasonable

doubt.

13

<>

. As far as the instigation or abetment to suicide exerted by the accused

persons is concerned, in this respect, Naeem (PW-4) has stated that after the

marriage of daughter of Naseem (PW- 9) with the deceased, daughter Shahin

(DW-1)

<>

remained living with the deceased in Nowgaon but the accused persons,

who are the parents and relatives of Shahin (DW-1) don't want to let Shahin

4 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

((DW-1) live with the deceased. He also deposed that after 3-4 months of the

marriage, the accused persons along with other relatives have come in two

vehicles and said that they will take Shahin ((DW-1) forcefully. Police has been

informed at that time and police has taken the accused persons to the police

station. Shahin ((DW-1) herself has denied to go with the accused persons as she

was pregnant at that time. In the evening, a Panchayat was convened in the

leadership of chairperson of Nagar-Palika, but since Shahin ((DW-1) was not

ready to go with the accused persons, the accused persons have returned without

Shahin ((DW-1) to their native place Chhattarpur. After one and a half year, when

there was a engagement ceremony of Shahin's brother, Shahin ((DW-1) has

visited in-law's house alongwith the deceased. The deceased returned but

Shahin ((DW-1) remained in the in-law's house. After 3 or 4 days when the

deceased visited Chhatarpur, the in-laws have denied to send Shahin ((DW-

1) with the deceased. They abused and insulted the deceased and compelled him

to leave the house.

14

<>

. Witness Naeem (PW-4) further deposed that when the matter went to Parivar

Paramarsh Kendra, then the Kendra has passed an order directing Shahin ((DW-

1) and deceased to live together as husband and wife. But the accused persons

have not send Shahin ((DW-1) with the deceased.

<>

Later an application under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C has been filed by accused persons on behalf of

Shahin ((DW-1) despite Shahin's unwillingness to institute such application in the

Court. Thereafter, they heard that the deceased has consumed some poisonous

substance. The statement of this witness has been substantiated by Rahil (PW-5),

Smt. Fajlun (PW-6) mother of the deceased and Naseem (PW-9) Father of the

deceased. Statements of all these witnesses are full of contradictions, variations

and omissions, which show that they have exaggerated the story. Such omissions,

5 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

contradictions and variations on material points renders their testimony doubtful.

15

<>

. Naeem Soudagar (PW-4) has stated that since the accused persons abused

and insult

<>

the deceased, therefore, deceased has committed suicide. Rahil

Soudagar (PW-5) has stated that the accused persons meted out mental cruelty to

the deceased, therefore, he committed suicide. Smt. Fajlun Nisha (PW-6) has

stated that accused persons have exerted pressure on the deceased, therefore he

committed suicide. While Naseem Soudagar (PW-9) has stated that the deceased,

when he was admitted in the hospital, had by way of sign communicated to him

that there was a dispute arose between him and his father- in- law and they gave

him some poisonous substance to consume. Therefore, these witnesses are not

identical on the point that what was the reason for committing suicide by the

deceased.

16

<>

. It is revealed from the statements of these witnesses i.e. the statements of

PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 that the dispute between the accused persons and

deceased in respect of wife of the deceased namely Shahin (DW-1) had been

referred to the Panchayat, Parivar Paramash Kendra and thereafter, the matter

went to the Court in form of proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., but no

document in this respect has been filed and proved on behalf of the prosecution

being important piece of evidence. No particular date of such dispute of giving

threat or committing insult of the deceased has been explained by these witnesses.

17

<>

. As far as the suicide note (Ex. P/16) is concerned which is verbratim as

under:-

"

<>

fcvku esa c’khe vdje lkSnkxj

<>

eS viuh lkl o llwj o lkys ls

<>

परेशान

<>

<>

gw ftl esjh iRuh Hkh gS mlus eq>s cqyk;k gS

<>

blfy

<>

ये

<>

<>

मै

<>

s

<>

mu ds ?kj tk jgk gq eq>s dqN gksrk gS rks oks tqEesnkj gksxs eq>s eufld rksj

<>

ij

<>

परेशान

<>

fd;k vkSj esjh dbZ ckj cstrh dh eS etcqj blfy;s gw fd esjh ,d iq=h gS

<>

cyds esjk ,d eqdnek Hkh py jgk gS ftldh ijehl ls

<>

मै

<>

;gk vkrk gw eq>s eftLVsM us

<>

gj 15 fnu esa feyus vk ldrk gwa bl fy;s es viuh iq=h bje ls feyus tkrk jkgrk gw

<>

6 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

;g fcvku esjs ikl gj 15 fnu esa esjs ikl jgrk gS

<>

esjk fcvku

<>

c’khe vdje

<>

14&10&2010

<>

"

<>

18.

<>

The recital of this document clearly shows that the deceased was going to

take his wife Shahin, but since his father-in-law and brother-in-law used to tease

him. Therefore, it is stated that if something is happened with him, they will be

responsible. It is not revealed from this document that it was written just before

committing suicide. As no factum that he is going to commit suicide has been

stated in this document nor it indicates the cause of such suicide, therefore, it

cannot be said to be a suicide note. Moreover, this document Ex.P/8 has been

seized by police after a long delay i.e. on 28.12.2010, while the death of the

deceased took place on 14.10.2010 and FIR has been lodged on 11.11.2010. It is

revealed from the testimony of witnesses especially Naseem (PW-9) that Wardboy

Ashok (PW-15) has given him this document, which has been taken out of the

clothes of the deceased just after his dead body was brought in the hospital.

Ashok (PW-15) has also substantiated this fact, but it has not been clarified by

this witness that why such important document, was not forthwith handed over to

the police. Ashok (PW-15) has admitted that he has not given this document to

the doctor concerned nor given it to the police, rather after 01 or 02 days, he has

given this documents to Naseem (PW-9), which doesn't reflect his natural

conduct.

19

<>

. In respect of this document Ex.P/16 report of fingerprint expert, Exhibit

P/29 and P/30 have been filed by the prosecution. The observations of fingerprint

expert A.K.Puranik (PW-14), that he found that a similar person has written and

signed the document Ex.P/16 cannot be found believable in respect that it has

been written and signed by the deceased himself, because the seizure of Ex.P/16

from the person of deceased is doubtful and doubt has also been raised in respect

7 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

of documents of natural writing of deceased. Hence, comparison with such natural

writing doesn't render any support to the prosecution.

<>

20.

<>

Munnilal (PW-1) was head constable at that time, who has prepared Shav

Panchanama and inquest report (Exhibit P/2 and P/3) and registered marg

intimation as Exhibit P/1 and has sent the dead body for postmortem examination.

He admitted in the cross-examination that he has inspected the entire dead body of

the deceased and his clothes wearing by the deceased but no document or any

other articles have been found.

21

<>

. As far as the statement of Naseem (PW- 9) in respect of oral dying

declaration by the deceased is concerned, it has not been a part of the prosecution

story. This fact has not been contained in the police statement or FIR. that the

deceased, while admitting in the hospital by way of sign, has communicated to

this witness Naseem (PW-9) that his father-in-law had some dispute due to which,

he has consumed some poisonous substance. Therefore, such oral dying

declaration is not found believable.

22

<>

. Praveen Kumar (PW-12) is the Investigating Officer. He has admitted in the

cross-examination that he has not taken any explanation from of Constable Munni

Lal as to where he has placed viscera since 15.10.2011 to 11.11.2010 and why he

has kept it between this period with him before deposition of this article in the

Malkhana. Moreover, no entry of Malkhana registered in that respect has been

submitted on behalf of the prosecution. He also admitted in the cross-examination

that during the investigation, he has not seen any suicide note. It is also admitted

by this witness that the parents of the deceased have not lodged any report that

deceased has consumed poison.

23

<>

. J.D. Verma (PW-13), who is also the Investigating Officer, conducted the

8 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

investigation partly. In his cross-examination, he admitted that while preparing the

Lash Panchnama, no incriminating article was found and no document was seized

from the dead body of the deceased. He further admitted that he did not inquire

from ward boy Ashok, as to why the alleged suicide note (Ex. P/16) was not

handed over either to the concerned doctor or to the police. No further inquiry was

made from Ashok regarding the presence of any witnesses at the time when the

said document was allegedly found, nor was any explanation sought or offered for

the delay in handing over the document. The witness Ashok also failed to explain

such delay. The Investigating Officer further admitted that the Seizure Memo (Ex.

P/8) reflects that the documents were seized from the possession of Naseem (PW-

9).

24

<>

. Under Section 107 of IPC "abetment" involves a mental process of

instigating a person or intentionally adding a person in doing of 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in this respect shows that in order to

convict a person under Section 306 of 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 other option and must have been intended

to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. The word

'instigated' literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to

do an act and a person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or

stimulates him to the act by any means, or language, direct or indirect, whether it

takes the form of express solicitation or the hint or of hints, insinuation or

encouragement.

25

<>

. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and

<>

9 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

others Vs State of Gujarat, (2025) 2 SCC 116

<>

has held in paragraphs 21 to 23 and

26 to 29 as under:-

"21. Section 306 IPC provides for punishment for the offence of

abetment of suicide. It has to be read with Section 107IPC which

defines the act of “abetment”. The provisions read as follows:

“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.”

“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.

Explanation

<>

2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time of

the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate

the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the

commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

22. Section 306 IPC penalises those who abet the act of suicide

by another. For a person to be charged under this section,

the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the

act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one

of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 IPC. These

conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the

individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that

the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to

act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life.

23. For a conviction under Section 306IPC, it is a well-established

legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to

abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not

sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The

prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the

10 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element

of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be

evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational

requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied,

underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to

provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.

26. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case

under Section 306 IPC are:

(i) the abetment;

(ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet

the deceased to commit suicide.

27. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative

that the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased

to commit suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the court

must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case,

as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to

determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim

left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of

alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either

direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide.

Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt.

For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by

the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that

compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide.

28. It is essential to establish that the death was a result of

suicide and that the accused actively abetted its commission. This

can involve instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions

that facilitated the act. The prosecution must prove beyond doubt

that the accused played a definitive role in the abetment. Without

clear evidence of an active role in provoking or assisting the

suicide, a conviction under Section 306IPC cannot be sustained.

29. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated

through actions or behaviours of the accused that directly

contributed to the victim's decision to take their own life.

Harassment, in itself, does not suffice unless it is accompanied by

deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation. Furthermore, these

actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide, showcasing a

clear outcome. It is only through the establishment of this direct

link that a conviction under Section 306 IPC can be justified.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving this active

involvement to hold the accused accountable for the alleged

abetment of suicide. The same position has been laid down by this

Court in several judgments, such as:

(i) M. Mohan v. State

<>

;

11 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

(ii) Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B

<>

.;

(iii) Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka.

<>

"

26

<>

. Recently, in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State

<>

of Maharasthra and others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 812

<>

, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed in paragraphs 21 to 23 as under:-

"21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process

of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of

a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused,

in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide,

a conviction cannot be sustained.

22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions

herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of

constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in

the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has

to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was

the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the

last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the

extreme act of taking one’s life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke

the camel’s back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a

larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide.

What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on

individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively

and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to

find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously

harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act

of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive

instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned

merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.

23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option,

but to take his life, because of what another person did or said;

which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment

on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and

purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious

acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all

probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the

accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly

drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of

goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or

12 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising

in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of

each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship

between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one

case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless

there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another

person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment

under Section 306."

27.

<>

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14

<>

SCC 151

<>

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prosecution has to prove the guilt

of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of justice in criminal

law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one

pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view

which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In case of Nikhil Chandra

<>

Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605

<>

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed

that it is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it

cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unless finding of the trial

Court is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the

appellate Court to interfere with the same.

28.

<>

Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC

<>

544,

<>

the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the principles while deciding

the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-

"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the

promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the

safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are

intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which

come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be

summarised as :

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial

and such appreciation must be comprehensive — inclusive of all

evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a

13 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)

<>

JUDGE

<>

miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views

are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be

followed;

(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere

possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of

acquittal;

(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in

appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address

all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover

all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate

court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or

fact in the decision of the trial court."...

29.

<>

Ex consequenti, in the light of aforesaid discussions and the ratio of law

laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases coupled with careful analysis

of the evidence, the observations made by the learned trial Court in the impugned

judgment are not found to be perverse, illegal or faulty. The learned trial Court on

proper appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the

accused/respondents. There is no ground for interference with the findings of the

trial Court. Therefore, while affirming the findings of acquittal of respondents by

the learned trial court, the appeal being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.

30

<>

. The order of the trial Court with regard to disposal of property is affirmed.

sm

14 CRA-2236-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4114