Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ramkubhai Bahadurbhai on 20 August, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1041 of 1996
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMKUBHAI BAHADURBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No.
1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
12,15,2,3,5,8
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,13,14,4,6,7,9
MR HG RATHOD(1441) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,13,4,6,7,9
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
12,15,2,3,5,8
MS SHUBHA B TRIPATHI(5597) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
10,11,14
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 20/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI) Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
1. An offence came to be registered against 15 accused persons before Paliad Police Station, Ta. Botad, Dist. Bhavnagar vide C.R. No. I-77 of 1995 under Sections 143, 144, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and the accused having denied the charge, came to be tried by the Sessions Court of Bhavnagar. Upon completion of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned advocates for both the sides as well as upon appreciating and evaluating the evidence which had been rendered by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted all the 15 accused by virtue of judgement and order dated 20.08.1996 in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1996.
Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
2. The complainant State, being aggrieved by the said judgement, had preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the reasons/grounds mentioned in the appeal memo.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, accused no. 1 - Ramkubhai Bahadurbhai, accused no. 4 - Kanubhai Vihabhai, accused no. 6 - Devkubhai alias Devayatbhai Nanabhai, accused no. 7 - Najabhai Nanabhai, accused no. 9 - Babubhai Vihabhai, accused no. 10 - Jhilubhai Shardulbhai, accused no. 11 - Sursingbhai Bahadurbhai, accused no. 13 - Anakhbhai Lakharabhai and accused no. 14 - Shardulbhai Manabhai have passed away. Hence, we shall proceed with the present appeal against accused no. 2 - Babubhai Devkubhai alias Devayatbhai, accused no. 3 - Jasubhai Vihabhai, accused no. 5 - Mansibhai Vihabhai, accused no. 8 - Mansibhai Devkubhai alias Dahyabhai, accused no. 12 - Mangalbhai Lakhabhai and accused no. 15 - Jhilubhai Najabhai. Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri on behalf of the appellant State who has reiterated the averments of the appeal memo. She has submitted that, the trial court had erred in disbelieving the witnesses who were natural; whose presence could not have been doubted; who were not related to the deceased and who had supported the prosecution case. Ms. Jhaveri has further submitted that, minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses would not affect the credibility of the prosecution case. The eye witnesses namely P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Harsurbhai and P.W. 3 - Karshanbhai Shamlabhai had supported the evidence of the Medical Officer, and both of them had stated the incident as it had occurred at the relevant time. Both these eye witnesses had also named the accused persons as having committed the offence in question, and they being known to them. According to Ms. Jhaveri, the trial court had erred by disbelieving the versions of these two eye witnesses. Accordingly, Ms. Jhaveri has urged to reappreciate the evidence that was rendered before the trial court, the same being erroneous Page 4 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined and far from facts and law of the case and consequently, allow this appeal and convict the remaining accused persons.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sakir M Radhanpurwala on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Vicky B. Mehta, representing the accused. Mr. Radhanpurwala has taken us through the evidence adduced before the trial court and, more particularly, the observations of the learned Sessions Judge in his judgement. Accordingly, Mr. Radhanpurwala has submitted that, the findings rendered by the learned Sessions Judge were in consonance with the facts and law of the case, and the same should not be disturbed, and the present appeal should be dismissed.
6. At the outset, the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused had examined as many as 15 witnesses and had also submitted 35 documents.
7. As per the prosecution case, the FIR came to be Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined lodged by P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Harsurbhai Khachar before Paliad Police Station on 14.11.1995 at 01.30 am wherein, the names of all the 15 accused were mentioned. It was stated by P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Khachar that, on 13.11.1995 at around 5.30-5.45 pm, he had set out from village Sudamada for Botad in Dumper No. GJ3-T-2939 filled with crushed stones. His employer Ladhubhai Motibhai, one Karshan Shamlabhai Rabari and their cleaner Lakhabhai Devshibhai had also accompanied him, and while they had reached near the signboard of Ratanpar village at around 06.30 pm, he saw three ambassador cars following them. At that time, one Bavkubai who was a resident of village Ratanpar was proceeding with his carrier loaded with grass. He stopped by their dumper and had interacted with Ladhubhai Motibhai, and thereafter, the said Bavkubhai having left, out of the three ambassador cars which were following them, one of the cars came in front of their dumper and obstructed their passage.
Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 7.1 At that time, the persons who were sitting inside the said motor cars had alighted with weapons, of whom, Jhilubhai Shardulbhai who was holding a 12 No. rifle had come to him and had asked him to get down from the dumper. However, he had not alighted and hence the said Jhilubhai had caught him by his collar and had forcibly pulled him down. At that time, Babubhai Devkubhai who was having a small revolver like weapon had gone towards his employer Ladhubhai Motibhai. Another person named Kanubhai Vihabhai was also carrying an identical weapon who, stood there whereas, Jagubhai Vihabhai was having a spear in his hand who also stood near the dumper, and the said Babubhai Devkubhai had fired two shots from his weapon upon Ladhubhai. However, he having ducked the shots, the said shots had landed on the hood of the dumper. At that time, Ladhubhai had tried to come out of the dumper, however, Kanubhai Vihabhai who had a small revolver had fired upon Ladhubhai, who was hit on his right side and fell in the cabin. It is further mentioned in the Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined FIR that, the other persons who had alighted from the ambassador cars were also having different weapons, and Ladhubhai having fallen down in a bleeding condition, all these persons had fled in the said motor cars towards Sayla.
7.2 P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Khachar had also stated the numbers of the ambassador cars in his FIR, and since Ladhubhai was stained with blood and having succumbed to his injuries, he had asked cleaner Lakhabhai to stay back, and he along with Karshanbhai Rabari reached Ladhubhai's house at Sudamada in a Chhakdo rickshaw. However, none was found in the house hence, they searched for Ladhubhai's son Jetsurbhai, who had gone to village Korda where they found him and apprised him about the entire incident, and he along with Jetsurbhai had come to Sudamada, and from there, both of them had reached the place of incident and thereafter, had reached Paliad Police Station to lodge the complaint. Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 7.3 P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Khachar has further mentioned in the FIR that, the motive for the said incident was a quarrel between the members of Kathi Darbar and Rabari communities. As against the members of the Kathi Darbar community who were grazing their cattle in the non-cultivable land of their village, the members of the Rabari community having procured an order from the higher authority had also started grazing their cattle in the said land, and accused who belonged to the Kathi Darbar community had suspicion about Ladhubhai having instigated the members of the Rabari community.
8. We have perused the entire record and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 39 of 1996. We have gone through the depositions of all the 15 witnesses which were examined by the prosecution before the competent court, and we have also considered the documentary evidence which was rendered in support of the oral evidence before the competent court.
Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
9. It is true that, in an acquittal appeal we, as the appellate court, have to reappreciate and reevaluate the evidence which had been rendered before the competent court by the prosecution, however, it is equally true that we, as the appellate court, should not delve deep and reevaluate and reappreciate the evidence in such a manner that, it would appear as if we would be sitting on a trial of a Sessions Case as a competent court. 9.1 Hence, considering the entire evidence which had been rendered by the prosecution on record before the competent court during the trial of Sessions Case No. 39 of 1996, and the observations of the learned Sessions Judge in his judgement in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1996, it deems fit to us to take notice of the reasons which were arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, and consequently acquit the accused.
9.2 The learned Sessions Judge in his judgement had Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined rightly observed thus:
(I) As per the case of the prosecution, though the incident had occurred at around 06.00 to 06.30 pm and the police station being at a distance of about only 4 kms from the place of incident, the FIR was not lodged promptly, and though there were three eye witnesses who were accompanying the deceased, none of them thought it fit to immediately approach the Paliad Police Station.
(II) After the FIR came to be registered by the Paliad Police Station, as per Section 157 of Cr.P.C a copy of the same was required to be forwarded to the concerned magistrate within stipulated time, however, it was not done so and rather, the same was forwarded to the magistrate at around 1 pm on the next day, and the said delay had gone unexplained.Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined (III) As per the deposition of P.W. 10 - Dr. Karshibhai Ramabhai Kathad and P.W. 14 - PSI Gajendrasinh Kanubhai Rana, the dead body of deceased Ladhubhai was already sent to the government hospital at Paliad for conducting post- mortem. However, as per the prosecution's case, the inquest panchnama of deceased Ladhubhai which is at Exh. 30 was drawn at the place of incident i.e. with the dead body of the deceased lying in the cabin of the dumper from 01.50 am to 2.35 am on 14.11.1995. The learned competent court had rightly observed that, there was no reason to disbelieve both, P.W. 10 and P.W. 14, who were independent witnesses having admitted that, the dead body of Ladhubhai had reached Paliad government hospital around 11 pm on 13.11.1995. (IV) Though the incident was shown to have occurred inside the dumper, a 10 inches blood stain was found at a distance of 48 feet in northern Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined direction behind the dumper, from where the dumper was standing. Also, though Ladhubhai was killed inside the cabin of the dumper, there was no evidence as regards blood stains having been found inside the cabin and the said dumper not having been seized by the I.O and hence, the learned Sessions Judge had rightly concluded that, the incident may not have occurred inside the cabin of the dumper as blood stains could only have been found at a distance of 48 ft from the dumper, if the said Ladhubhai was attacked at such place. (V) P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Khachar had gone to Korda to inform P.W. 13 - Jetsurbhai who was the son of the deceased, and thereafter, both of them had reached the place of incident. As per the prosecution's case, the distance between Sudamada and the place of incident was around 16 to 17 kms and between Sudamada to Korda was around 8 to 9 kms, and if a person would have to travel this Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined distance to and fro, he would have to travel a distance of around 40 to 50 kms. However, it had taken 6 hours for P.W. 1 Amrabhai and P.W. 13 Jetsurbhai to travel the said distance. Further, P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Khachar had stated that, he had travelled with Jetsurbhai in his vehicle whereas, Jetsurbhai had stated that he had travelled with P.W. 1 - Amrabhai on his motorcycle. The learned competent court had rightly observed that, the time consumed by P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Khachar and P.W. 13 - Jetsurbhai before lodging the FIR clearly suggested that, they had decided as to how the FIR had to be lodged. Also, P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Khachar had admitted in his cross-examination that his signature on the FIR, which is on record at Mark 22/1, was taken at 10 am on the next day at village Sudamada. In our opinion, though an FIR is only a corroborative piece of evidence, when the very existence of the same becomes doubtful, the entire case of the prosecution would fall on that count. Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined (VI) The learned competent court had rightly observed that, all the three eye witnesses had improvised as regards the facts of the incident in their respective depositions, and hence their depositions could not be accepted at face value. (VII) There was a difference between the clothes which were seized or which were collected from the person of the deceased and the clothes which were sent for examination to the ballistic expert. Further, all the panch witnesses had turned hostile as regards the discovery/recovery panchnamas of the weapons used by the accused in commission of the crime. The entire evidence of the prosecution had remained silent about how the accused persons had gathered and had formed an unlawful assembly and how they had planned the murder of Ladhubhai and how they were armed with individual weapons. Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined (VIII)Though the incident having occurred on a public road and there also being agricultural lands in the vicinity and people having gathered after the incident, none such individuals had been examined as independent witnesses in the case. (IX) The competent court had also rightly observed that on the day of incident, P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Khachar who was the driver on the truck of deceased Ladhubhai, was going to Botad with crushed stones and though the fact that, the government had issued licence for quarry holders and a note being created for the crushed stones which were collected from the quarry had come on the record, no documentary evidence to that effect had been produced. Though P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Khachar had stated that, he had submitted such documents before the police, the same had not been produced by the I.O.
Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined (X) The competent court had rightly observed that, it was only accused no. 7 - Najabhai Nanabhai who had a reason to enter into a quarrel with deceased Ladhubhai, and there also being evidence on record about Ladhubhai not having enmity with anyone, the fact that all the 15 accused belonging to the same family having been arraigned as accused, created serious doubt about the prosecution case. (XI) The entire evidence smacked of malafides at every stage, right from the beginning of the incident to the stage of completion of investigation. (XII) The learned competent court had rightly observed that, the information regarding cognizable offence i.e. the murder of Ladhubhai had reached the police station during the night itself, however, P.W. 1 - Amrabhai Khachar himself having stated that, he had affixed his signature on the FIR at Mark 22/1 on the next day at 10 am at Sudamada, the said Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined FIR was not exhibited.
9.3 Apart from the aforesaid observations of the learned competent court, the deposition of P.W. 15 - PSI Gambhirsinh Bahadursinh Gohil, who was examined vide Exh. 60, not only appeared to be full of contradictions and infirmities, but also appeared to be a complete sham.
10. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this Court stated:
"While deciding an appeal it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court".
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of 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 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 Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined presumption of innocence 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. 10.1 In the case of Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2022 (6) SCC 294, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"7. It is well settled that:-
7.1 While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court deserves to be upturned (See Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka3, Anwar Ali and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh).
7.2 With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (See Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh).
7.3 If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (See Sambasivan and others v. State of Kerala)."Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 10.2 Similarly, in the case of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and another reported in [2024] 4 S.C.R. 322, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"6. It is true that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has to reappreciate the evidence. After re-appreciating the evidence, the first question that needs to be answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that this question has not been adverted to. Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal. The High Court has ignored the well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the 326 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports accused. After having perused the judgment, we find that the High Court has not addressed itself on the main question.
7. The second error the High Court committed is found in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment. The High Court has gone to the extent of recording a finding that the appellants have failed to adduce evidence in their support, failed to examine the defence witness and failed to establish falsity of the prosecution's version. This concept of the burden of proof is entirely wrong. Unless, under the Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden. In a case where there is a statutory presumption, after the prosecution discharges initial burden, the burden of rebuttal may shift on the accused. In the absence of the statutory provisions as above, in this case, the burden was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the High Court's finding on the burden of proof is completely erroneous. It is contrary to the law of the land.
...
11. Therefore, the appeal must succeed. We set aside the judgment and order dated 14th December 2018 of the High Court and set aside the conviction of the appellants. The judgment and order dated 5th July 1997 of the Trial Court is restored. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant no.2 are cancelled. The appellant no.1 shall be forthwith set at liberty unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case."
10.3 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgement or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93:
(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
10.4 Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the competent court below, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary. In light of the above settled principle of law laid down for acquittal appeals, we have briefly reppreciated the evidence led by the prosecution in the present Sessions Case.
11. The competent court below had in depth and at length, analysed the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, and had come to the conclusion that, the charge against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Upon overall Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1041/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence as well as the impugned judgement, we do not deem it fit to interfere with the reasonings assigned by the competent court, the same being cogent and factually and legally correct. Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1996 by the learned Sessions Judge of Bhavnagar is hereby confirmed.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. R & P, if any called for, to be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand forfeited.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) (UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) DIVYA Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 23:37:31 IST 2025