Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sanjaybhai Ranchodbhai Patel on 27 November, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 307 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SANJAYBHAI RANCHODBHAI PATEL & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
JUCKY LUCKY CHAN(8033) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED TO CONCERNED POLICE STATION HOWEVER,
SERVICE REPORT NOT FILED BY POLICE STATION for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 27/11/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22/01/2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined Fast Track Court No.3, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Special Atro. Case No.26 of 2006, whereby, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the original accused respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") read with the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1981 (for short "the Atrocities Act"). 1.1 At the outset, it may be noted that the respondent No.1 - Sanjaybhai Ranchodbhai Patel, passed away on 13/05/2021 during the period of Covid Pandemic pending the present appeal, and therefore, the present appeal stands abated qua respondent No. 1 - Sanjaybhai Ranchodbhai Patel. The death certificate issued by the competent authority is placed on record.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that, the complainant Ashwinbhai Ramabhai Ravat lodged complaint before Chandkheda Police Station for the offences punishable Under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code & Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act stating therein that Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined on 01/01/2006, his brother witness Jitendrabhai Ramabhai Ravat went at Umiya Parlour, which was situated at Gujarat Housing Board Corner, Chandkheda, Gandhinagar where he bought lottery ticket and won Rs.50/- as price and demanded his price from accused no.1 and accused no.1 assured him that he would gave it the next day. In response to that on 13/1/2006, witness Jitendrabhai Ramabhai Ravat went at Parlour of accused no.1 and demanded his price of Rs.50/- where both the accused persons were present and they knew very well that witness Jitendrabhai belonged to Scheduled Caste, insulted him in public by giving filthy abuses against his caste. Accused no.1 inflicted bat blow on the head of Jitendrabhai and accused no.2 inflicted fist blows on Jitendrabhai by giving filthy abuses against his caste. After receiving information about the said incident from Vishal Prahladbhai Makwana, complainant Ashwinbhai Ramabhai Ravan shifted his brother at Chandkheda dispensary, and thereafter, he shifted him at Ahmedabad Civil Hospital for further treatment. Therefore, complaint was lodged by the complainant.
2.1 On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined initiated and as there was sufficient evidence against the present respondents-accused, charge sheet was filed against them before the learned JMFC, Gandhinagar. However, as the case was triable by the court of Sessions, the Learned JMFC, Gandhinagar, committed the said case to the Sessions Court as per the provisions of 209 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, charge was framed against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code & 3 (1) (10) of the Atrocity Act. The respondents accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore, laid evidence.
2.2 In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined as mane as 12 witnesses as well as produced several documentary evidences on the record of the case, which are as under :
ORAL EVIDENCES :-
Eye Witnesses:-
1. Complainant Ashwinbhai Ramabhai Ravat Exh. 09
2. Injured Jitendra Rambhai Ravat Exh. 11
3. Witness Vishal Prahladbhai Makwana Exh. 17 Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined Panch Witnesses:-
4. Panch of the Panchnama of Place of offence - Exh. 12 Karshanbhai Nathabhai
5. Panch of the Panchnama of seizure of muddamal Exh. 14 weapons - Amratbhai Dahyabhai Patel
6. Panch of the Panchnama of seizure of muddamal Exh. 16 weapons - Rameshbhai Jayantibhai Medical Witnesses:-
7. Dr. Gitanjaliben Purak (Chandkheda) Exh. 18
8. Dr. Yashmin Momammadsafiq Huseni - Exh. 26 Ahmedabad Civil Hospital
9. Dr. Jayesh Mafatlal Patel (Ahmedabad Civil Exh. 36 Hospital)
10. Dr. Jayesh Anantrai Shelat (Ahmedabad Civil Exh. 37 Hospital) Government Witness:-
11. Hasmukhbhai Tribhovandas Doctor Exh. 20
- Social Welfare Officer Police Witnesses:-
12. Investigating Officer - Nitinkumar Dalpatbhai Exh. 22 Chauhan
13. PSO - Motibhai Mavjibhai Exh. 23
14. Investigating Officer - Jawansinh Gobarji Ninama Exh. 25 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES :-
1. Original complaint Exh. 10
2. Panchnama of the place of offense Exh. 13
3. Panchnama of seizure of muddamal and arrest of Exh. 15 the accused.Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined
4. Certificate regarding caste of the Injured. Exh. 21
5. Medical Certificate of the Injured. Exh. 19
6. CT Scan Report of the Injured. Exh. 29
7. Certificate regarding treatment given in Civil Exh. 31 Hospital to the Injured.
2.3 At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Gandhinagar, acquitted all the respondents accused from the charges levelled against them.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 22/01/2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Gandhinagar in Special Atro. Case No.26 of 2006, the appellant - State of Gujarat has filed the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, appearing on behalf of the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 - original accused.
Though served none has remained present on behalf of the respondent No.3 - informant.
Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined
4. Learned APP Ms.Bhatt has taken this Court to the relevant witnesses and the documentary evidence recorded and produced by the prosecution to prove the charge levelled against the respondent accused and after thoroughly examining the same, learned APP Ms.Bhatt has submitted that though the allegation made against the respondent accused was proved by the prosecution by examining the witnesses and from the oral as well as documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved the facts and factum of the charge beyond reasonable doubts. She has further submitted that the prosecution has produced all the relevant material to connect the present respondent accused with the offence committed, however, the trial court failed to appreciate the same in its true and proper spirit and passed the impugned judgment and order which is erroneous, illegal and unjust. She has submitted that considering the submissions made by the prosecution, the trial court ought to have convicted the respondent accused for the charges levelled against him, however, the trial court while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal has committed a serious error of law and on facts by acquitting the respondent accused. She has further submitted that the trial Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true and proper spirit and the same were discarded by the trial court on the ground that there are material contradictions and exaggerations on the part of the witnesses during the course of their examination before the court and therefore, the trial court has passed the impugned order of acquittal, which is against the settled principles of law and against the facts of the present case. Learned APP Ms.Bhatt has vehemently contended that the charge levelled against the respondent No.1 and allegations were proved against the respondent No.1 with regard to the injury caused to the injured Jitendrabhai Ramabhai Ravat (PW-2), however the said respondent No.1 passed away pending the appeal, however, the respondent No.2 has also participated in the alleged offence by giving kick and fist blow and also using abusive words and thereby tried to insult the present appellant with an intention to commit offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned APP Ms.Bhatt has urged that impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is erroneous, illegal and unjust and the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the present appeal is required to be allowed. Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined
5. As against that, learned advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 - original accused, has submitted that in fact from the beginning, the story put forward by the prosecution creates a serious doubt and on evaluation of the evidence, the trial court has rightly observed that the respondent No.2 was falsely implicated in the alleged offence as there were no serious allegations worth the name against the respondent No.2. He has submitted that in fact, the incident was originally between the respondent No.1 and the injured Jitendrabhai on account of some quarrel with regard to prize money won by the injured, which he was demanding from the respondent No.1 and in a spur of moment, the respondent No.1 started assaulting to Jitendrabhai by inflicting blow on the back-side of the head by a cricket bat as alleged by the informant, however, with a view to involve the respondent No.2, they had improved their story during the course of examination before the trial court and therefore, their improvement and exaggerations were proved before the trial court and thus, the trial court has rightly recorded the order of acquittal in favour of the present respondent accused. He has submitted that there are material contradictions in the Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined depositions of the witnesses which is proved from the deposition of the I.O. and even serious discrepancies were recorded during the course of recording the judgment after evaluating the evidence that though the injured was taken firstly to CHC Chandkheda, where the preliminary treatment was given by the doctor, neither the said fact was informed to the concerned jurisdictional police with regard to the MLC case nor they had recorded the facts in the register and the information was given by the informant after almost 22 hours i.e., the injury was caused on 13/01/2006 and the information was given on 14/01/2006 at about 1.00 p.m., which creates a serious doubt that the whole story is cooked up by the prosecution to involve the respondent No.2 in the alleged offence and therefore, the trial court has rightly considered the evidence of the witnesses and passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondent accused. Learned advocate Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan has further submitted that from the beginning, the story put forward by the injured PW-2 that the quarrel took place between the respondent No.1 and the injured, where, the respondent No.1 had inflicted blow on the back side of the head of the injured with a cricket bat and that information he had passed to the informant PW-1 in Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined the civil hospital for the first time, however, PW-1 had completely changed the version before the trial court that the information was given by one Vishalbhai who was one of the eye-witness to the incident and was present in the hospital alongwith the injured, in fact the evidence of that Vishalbhai had completely contradicted the story of the prosecution and therefore, the trial court has considered all these aspects and after evaluating the evidence of the witnesses has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, which is not required to be interfered by this Court in the present appeal. Learned advocate Mr.Chan has therefore, urged that the present appeal be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal be confirmed.
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. After considering the facts of the present case and after considering the submissions and after the detailed examination of the evidence of the witnesses recorded by the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The trial court has given cogent and Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined valid reasons while discussing the evidence led by the prosecution while giving answers to the issue Nos.1 to 6 and while evaluating the evidence of the witnesses, has considered the same in its true and proper spirit. The trial court has rightly discussed the issues that there was an embellishment, improvisation and material contradiction on record proved through the evidence of the I.O. It was also recorded by the trial court that though the names of independent witnesses had been referred, they had not been examined and not cited as a witness, the reasons best known to the prosecution. It also prima facie appears that the prosecution has suppressed the material genesis by not examining the independent witnesses and therefore, after considering all these aspects, the trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, which in my humble opinion, not required to be interfered with while exercising powers under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.
6.1 The learned trial Judge has considered all the relevant material produced by the prosecution and after going through the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order acquitting the Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined respondent accused. It is also now well settled that while exercising powers under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., if the trial court while passing the order has committed any illegality or any perversity or has exceeded the jurisdiction, unless and until such facts come on record, the Court is very slow while dealing with an acquittal appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in a series of judgments enunciated the principles while exercising jurisdiction under Section 378 against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is inasmuch as can re-appreciate the evidence, review or re-consider the evidence and if the Court finds that there is any illegality or any irregularity in the judgment then in that case only, the Court has power to entertain the appeal and interfere with the order of acquittal. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraphs 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 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court based upon Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court.
6.2 It is also worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras - 37 to 40 as under:-
"37. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: -
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] " 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined (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 emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -
"8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."
6.3 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 :-
"Head Note B. - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S.378 - Appeal against acquittal - General principles regarding the power and duty of the appellate court, reiterated - Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.419 Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined
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 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 Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/307/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024 undefined 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."
7. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 22/01/2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Gandhinagar in Special Atro. Case No.26 of 2006 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, furnished by the respondent accused stands cancelled.
7.1 Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 02 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 21:28:03 IST 2024