Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1987 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. CHAVDA JAHUJI MANAJI

2024-10-25

MAULIK J.SHELAT, BIREN VAISHNAV

body2024
JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, camp at Patan in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1993 on, 31.12.1996, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 325, 337 read with section 149 on Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of Bombay Police Act. So far as the facts are concerned, the respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience/clarity and brevity. 2. Brief case of the prosecution case is as under: 2.1 In this case incident took place at village Vasai of district Mehsana on February 23, 1992 at about 11:00 a.m. the day on which elections of various Gram Panchayats including that of village Vasai was held. That on 23.02.1992 at about 11:00 a.m. initially some commotion took place between Patels and Darbars and Shri B.D. Vaghela, Police Sub Inspector posted on duty at the place, lodged a FIR. As he had no knowledge about any serious injuries to the persons gathered there and as he did not know the persons gathered, he gave simple F.I.R. of minor offences. At that time, the Police also did not take the incident seriously, the relatives of the deceased took the incident seriously and hence till about 27.2.1992 material investigation was not carried out. One of the injured Baldevbhai expired on 26.02.1992 and hence the present petitioner went to Vijapur Police Station on 27.02.2992 and lodged a F.I.R. for the offence of murder and the material investigation started. 2.2 In pursuance of the above allegation of the first informant, First Information Report was lodged with the Vijapur Police Station, Mehsana, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 325,337 read with section 114,149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 135 of Bombay Police Act vide I-CR No. 71/92. Investigating Agency during the course of investigation recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn various panchnamas including panchnama of scene of offence, collected medical papers, PM Report etc. for the purpose of proving of the offence. After having found sufficient material against the Respondents-Accused, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana. Investigating Agency during the course of investigation recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn various panchnamas including panchnama of scene of offence, collected medical papers, PM Report etc. for the purpose of proving of the offence. After having found sufficient material against the Respondents-Accused, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana. As the said Court, lacks jurisdiction to try the offence as alleged offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Mehsana as provided under Section 209 of the Code, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 554 of 1992. 2.3 Upon committal of the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Mehsana, the Ld. Sessions Judge, framed charges vide Exh.21 against the Respondents-Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents-Accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. They were tried for the said offences and in order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 14th prosecution witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the Ld. Trial Court. The details of the evidence in brief led by the prosecution are reproduced in the table form hereunder: ORAL EVIDENCES S. No. Exhibit No. Name of Witness Particulars and Remarks 1. 40 Patel Ambalal PW-01, Eye Witness, Complainant As per his deposition all accused came with stick and identified all of them. As per his deposition Accused No. 01, Jasuji Manaji give stick blow on the head of BaldevBhai [Now deceased], Accused No. 09, Jasuji Pratapji inflicted stick blow on Parshottambhai Iswarbhai [PW-02] on his right leg. Complaint Exh.41, Page No. 189 2. Parshottamb hai Ishwarbhai PW-02, Injured Witness-As per his deposition all accused came with stick and identified all of them. As per his deposition Accused No. 01, Jasuji Manaji give stick blow on the head of BaldevBhai [Now deceased], Accused No. 09, Jasuji Pratapji inficted stick blow on Parshottambhai Iswarbhai [PW-02] on his right leg. 3. 43 Ambalal Mafatlal PW-03, Injured Eye Witness and candidate of the election of Panchayat 4. 44 Rajendrak Umar Mafatlal PW-04, Witness-After incident he came their and took the Baldevbhai and Ambalal in vehicle. Oral dying declaration of Baldevbhai before him and given the name of Accused No. 01 Jahuji Manaji, Accused No. 03 Dilipsing Baldevji, Accused No. 07-Samaji, Accused No. 08 Arjanji 5. 76 Dr. 44 Rajendrak Umar Mafatlal PW-04, Witness-After incident he came their and took the Baldevbhai and Ambalal in vehicle. Oral dying declaration of Baldevbhai before him and given the name of Accused No. 01 Jahuji Manaji, Accused No. 03 Dilipsing Baldevji, Accused No. 07-Samaji, Accused No. 08 Arjanji 5. 76 Dr. Navneetbhai PW-05, Doctor witness and visited in the place of Baldevbhai 6. 77 Bhecherbhai Kachrdas PW-06, Eye Witness-As per his deposition all accused came with stick and identified all of them. As per his deposition Accused No. 01, Jasuji Manaji give stick blow on the head of BaldevBhai [ Now deceased], Accused No. 09, Jasuji Pratapji inficted stick blow on Parshottambhai Iswarbhai [PW-02] on his right leg 7. 78 Bababhai Ishwarbhai PW-07, Eye Witness-As per his deposition all accused came with stick and identified all of them. As per his deposition Accused No. 01, Jasuji Manaji give stick blow on the head of BaldevBhai [ Now deceased], Accused No. 09, Jasuji Pratapji inficted stick blow on Parshottambhai Iswarbhai [PW-02] on his right leg 8. 88 Dr. Sunilbhai Manilal PW-08 Medical Officer C.S. Municipal Hospital, Kalol, examine BaldevBhai on 23-02-1992 at 01:00 pm case papers exhibit: 89, Page No. 280 to 281 9. 96 Dr. Ravindra Deshmukh PW-09, Medical Officer forensic medicine department B.J. Medical Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad giving opinion about death, death was homicidal, cause of death is head injury, as per his opinion, Opinion of natural death was not proper Page No. 289 Exh.66, Page No. 229 opinion, 97, Page No. 289, 98, Page No. 297, 99, Page No. 298 100, Page No. 300 10. 102 Dr. Bhogilal Patel PW-10, Medical Officer, perform Postmortem on 27-02-1992 at 01:15 pm 11. 110 Kirtibhai Popatlal PW-11, Medical Officer, C.H.C. Hospital examine on 23-02-1992 at 02:10 pm 12. 117 Bhwansinh Vaghela PW-12, Eye Witness 13. 119 Girishchandr a Barot PW-13, Investigation Officer 14. 122 Manubhai Kuberdas PW-14, P.S.I. Giving Complaint Exhibit: 118, Page No. 343 to 344 Documentary Evidences S. No. Exhibit No. Particulars Page No. 1. 50 Inquest Panchnama 205 2. 47 Panchnama of place of Incident 201 3. 21 Charge 55 4. 52 Panchnama of recovery of the cloths of the deceased 209 5. 103 Postmortem note 304 6. 112 Medical Certificate of Baldevbhai 328 7. 113 Medical Certificate of Baldevbhai 329 8. 41 Complaint 189 9. 50 Inquest Panchnama 205 2. 47 Panchnama of place of Incident 201 3. 21 Charge 55 4. 52 Panchnama of recovery of the cloths of the deceased 209 5. 103 Postmortem note 304 6. 112 Medical Certificate of Baldevbhai 328 7. 113 Medical Certificate of Baldevbhai 329 8. 41 Complaint 189 9. 61 Panchnama of recovery of the cloths of the deceased after postmortem 220 10. 65 Police Yadi for Opinion of F.S.L. 226 11. 73 F.S.L. report of Ahmedabad 242 12. 74 Cerological F.S.L. department Report 248 13. 75 Deadly Weapon 249 14. 89 Case papers of Baldevbhai Patel 280 15. 90 Case papers of Ambalalbhai Patel 282 16. 103 Postmorterm report of Baldevbhai 304 2.4 Thus, prosecution had examined the complainant, eye witnesses, medical officer and the police witness, which according to the prosecution have bring home the charge in support of their case. The prosecution has also relied upon documentary evidences in support of the oral evidence led by them before the Trial Court. At the end of the evidence, necessary pursis was presented before the Ld. Trial Court declaring closer of evidence. Ld. Trial Court has thereafter proceeded to record the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With such evidence being noticed, Ld. Trial Court after evaluating the same arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the Respondents-Accused and has thereby recorded acquittal. 3. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has made the following submissions: 3.1 It is submitted that despite there being 5 eye witnesses including injured witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution. namely, PW-01 Patel Ambalal Amtharam, PW-02 Parsottambhai Ishwarbhai, PW-03 Ambalal Mafatlal, PW-06 Becharbhai Kachradas, PW-07 Bababhai Iswarbhai, had supported the case of the prosecution and narrated the actual incident in their respective depositions, Ld. Trial Court had discarded their evidence without any cogent reasons. It is submitted that presence of those witnesses at the place of incident is very natural and therefore also, there was no reason for not believing the said witnesses & Ld. Trial Court had committed grave error. It is submitted that by examining the PW-96 Medical Officer - Dr. Ravindra Deshmukh prosecution had successfully brought on record, the fact that death of the deceased was homicidal death and not a natural death. Trial Court had committed grave error. It is submitted that by examining the PW-96 Medical Officer - Dr. Ravindra Deshmukh prosecution had successfully brought on record, the fact that death of the deceased was homicidal death and not a natural death. He also given the opinion that the cause of death is due to head injury. Ld. Trial Court had discarded the medical evidence which has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. 3.2 It is submitted that findings of acquittal are contrary to law in evidence on record in the findings recorded are erroneous and based on irrelevant material. It is further contended that Ld. Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the Respondents and not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record though the prosecution had proved case against the Accused. It is further contended that Ld. Trial Court has given weightage to the minor omission and contradiction in the witnesses though there was no any material omission and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. The Ld. Trial Court has relied on minor contradiction and discarded the evidence of the witnesses, thus, the reasons assigned by the Ld. Trial Court while acquitting the accused are unjust, improper, perverse and unwarranted to the facts of the prosecution case and thereby, has committed an error in acquitting the accused. It is further submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of all the accused and Ld. Trial Court has committed an error both on law and facts. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly recorded the order of acquittal, which deserves to be quashed and appropriate sentences for the offences be passed against all the accused. On the aforesaid contentions, she submitted that present appeal may kindly be allowed as prayed for. 4. Mr. B.S. Patel learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Chirag Patel learned advocate for the respondent has made the following submissions: 4.1 Mr. B.S. Patel learned Senior Advocate states that the judgment and order of the Trial Court acquitting the accused is just and proper. He would submit that from the evidence the testimony of the deceased witness there is large contradiction. 4.2 He would submit that though the prosecution has tried to establish the case through eye-witnesses who were present at the scene particularly when most of the eyewitnesses were the injured eye-witnesses. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to do so. He would submit that from the evidence the testimony of the deceased witness there is large contradiction. 4.2 He would submit that though the prosecution has tried to establish the case through eye-witnesses who were present at the scene particularly when most of the eyewitnesses were the injured eye-witnesses. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to do so. It is evident from the statement of the Investigating Officer Shri B.D. Waghela that the incident that caused injuries was either because of stone pelting or as a result of lathi wielding assailants. It therefore is a case where the occurrence of the incident and causing of injuries as a result of lathi blows itself was in doubt. 4.3 There have been material contradictions in the statements made by the injured witnesses. There is no error therefore committed by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused. 5. Having considered the submissions of Ms C.M. Shah learned APP for the State and Mr. B.S. Patel Learned senior Advocate for the Original Accused, at the outset we note that the Original Accused 1 and 10 have expired and their death certificates are placed on record. 5.1 The case of the prosecution hinges on 5 Prosecution witnesses who have been eyewitnesses to the incident. 5 Doctors have been examined and 3 Police officers. 5.2 PW-1 is Patel Ambalal Amtharam who has been examined at Exh.40.He deposes that there was an election of the Panchayat on 23.2.1992. The election was the S.G. High School. He had gone to the campus at 10.30 to vote at the election. When he was standing in the compound the accused got down from the Jeep. They were carrying sticks. The same is also testified by PW-2 and PW-3 Parshottam Ishwardas and Ambalal Mafatlal. All of them testify that these accused were shouting to beat up Patels. Patel Ambalal Mafatalal further testifies that after he came out of the voting booth someone hit him with a stick. Bechardas Kachrabhai PW-6 also testified that while he was standing at a Pan shop he was informed that there has been a commotion at the School. Bababhai Ishwarbhai PW-7 has also testified that he could not vote as there was a rush and then he saw the accused wielding sticks get out of a jeep. Bechardas Kachrabhai PW-6 also testified that while he was standing at a Pan shop he was informed that there has been a commotion at the School. Bababhai Ishwarbhai PW-7 has also testified that he could not vote as there was a rush and then he saw the accused wielding sticks get out of a jeep. As per the case of the prosecution while the voting was on the accused came in a jeep, accused no. 1 Jahuji hit Baldevbhai Patel with the stick on his head as a result of which Baldevbahi fell down. The complaint was filed by Patel Ambalal. Even the police officer B.D. Vaghela lodged a complaint on 23.2.1992 which for the reasons to be recorded later was and should be taken as the real FIR. 5.3 From the FIR of the Police Officer at the scene a crowd of 100 Patels and Darbars had gathered and there was a bout of stone pelting. There were injuries on both sides as a result of this stone pelting. At that time these 10 accused had got down from the Jeep. 5.4 Patel Ambalal in his testimony states that the accused no. 1 hit Baldevbhai on his head whereas the accused no. 9 hit Parshottambhai Ishwarbhai on his knees with the stick. He does not clarify the role of the remaining accused. The role in the testimony also indicates that Ambalal Mafatlal was also hit but who and where he was hit was not specified. The testimony further indicates that the injured were taken in a car by Ramanji Harjivandas however Ramanji Harjivandas has not been examined and there is no explanation why he was not examined by the prosecution. 5.5 PW-2 Parshotambhai Ishwarbhai in his testimony indicates that the incident happened at 11.00 AM at the School. When he was sitting waiting to vote a jeep arrived with the 10 accused. Accused No. 1 hit a stick on the head of the deceased Baldevbhai. Thereafter he left on the scooter of Mangalbhai Nareshbhai. If that be so the prosecution has also not examined Mangalbhai Nareshbhai who could have confirmed his presence as testified by PW-2. Even the PW-3 does not specifically state as to who hit whom with the sticks. 5.6 Dr. Sunil Manilal PW-8 has been examined who states that he had examined Patel Ambalal and certificate of injuries sustained by him is produced at Exh.92. Even the PW-3 does not specifically state as to who hit whom with the sticks. 5.6 Dr. Sunil Manilal PW-8 has been examined who states that he had examined Patel Ambalal and certificate of injuries sustained by him is produced at Exh.92. However when this Doctor’s deposition is seen he does not elaborate on the nature of injuries sustained by Ambalal Patel. 5.7 When the testimonies of the eye-witnesses Parshottam Ishwarbhai Patel Ambalal are examined in light of testimonies of other witnesses and especially the and Police Officer B.D. Vaghela itself and when no certificate of injury has been produced by Parshottambhai and when this is seen in light of the police statement that there was a lot of stone throwing and injuries were sustained as a result thereof one seriously is put to doubt whether the injuries were sustained as a result of stone throwing or because of the alleged incident. 5.8 When the testimony of PW-6 Becharbhai Kachradas is examined it comes on record that though he testified with regard to the injuries to Parshottambhai but there is no injury certificate with regard to the injuries to Parshottambhai. 5.9 PW-7 Bababhai Ishwarbahi’s testimony also deposes about the injuries to the injured witness Parshottambhai and there the prosecution theory was exposed to contradiction in the varied version to the injuries. 5.10 The prosecution case therefore hinged on the testimonies of the injured witnesses whereas what is found is that the nature of injuries are suspect because of the absence of injuries’ verification and medical evidence which is absent. 5.11 Perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Court indicates that it has assessed the evidence and concluded that the fact that the incident did occur on 23.2.1992 at the School cannot be disputed. The evidence of the Police Officer Shri B.D. Vaghela on the site does indicate that there was a large presence of Darbars and Patels at the site of election booth. There was large-scale stone pelting. Vaghela’s complaint at Exh.42 indicates that a report was filed at the Vijapur Police Station which was received on the same day at 3.20 pm. Medical Officer at the Kalol Municipal Hospital had given a telephone vardhi at 1.10 pm that Baldevbhai and Amablal Mafatbhai had come to the hospital and Baldevbhai has been transferred to the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. Vaghela’s complaint at Exh.42 indicates that a report was filed at the Vijapur Police Station which was received on the same day at 3.20 pm. Medical Officer at the Kalol Municipal Hospital had given a telephone vardhi at 1.10 pm that Baldevbhai and Amablal Mafatbhai had come to the hospital and Baldevbhai has been transferred to the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. Ambala Patel’s complaint was lodged after the death of Baldevbhai and therefore the first version of the police officer B.D. Vaghela was taken to be the correct version this is because the version of Ambalal has been recorded 4 days after the incident. 5.12 The trial court had also raised the issue of whether the death of Baldevbhai was natural or homicidal and it was found on discussion of the medical evidence that there was no conclusive evidence that the death had occurred as a result of the injuries sustained because it has come on record that the deceased Baldevbhai had been discharged from Hospital and died at home. 5.13 Dr. Bhogilal Keshavlal has been examined as PW-10 and as per his deposition the body of Baldevbhai was received at the Community Health Center, Vijapur where he was the Medical Officer at 13.15 pm on 27.2.1992 four days after the incident. It is crucial to see that the doctor of PM has testified that reading note 23 in PM suggests the death has not been due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. 5.14 Dr. Deshmukh who gave his opinion indicates that the cause of death was natural. All these factors indicate that the cause of death was itself was in a grey area in addition to the fact that the nature of injuries and their cause as we have discussed in the earlier part is itself doubtful. This is because that the injured witnesses have had contradictions in their versions and the police officer B.D. Vaghela has stated that there was large scale stone pelting which caused severe injuries to several persons. Therefore looking to this version what is apparent is that whether the incident of the accused accosting the 5 witnesses and the deceased with sticks and the death of Baldevbhai at home 4 days after discharge add a question mark to the whole incident. Therefore looking to this version what is apparent is that whether the incident of the accused accosting the 5 witnesses and the deceased with sticks and the death of Baldevbhai at home 4 days after discharge add a question mark to the whole incident. 5.15 This is the summation of the learned judge while deciding the sessions case and on independent examination of evidence we cannot come to a conclusion different then the one on the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court. 6. It may be noted that as per the settled legal position, when two views are possible, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court should not be interfered with by the Appellate Court unless for the special reasons. A beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Niwas, (2010) 15 SCC 463 be made in this regard. In the said case, it has been observed as under: “6. This Court has held in Kalyan v. State of U.P. (2001) 9 SCC 632 : “8. The settled position of law on the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is passed, it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused persons, as envisaged under the criminal jurisprudence prevalent in our country is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court. Normally the views of the trial court, as to the credibility of the witnesses, must be given proper weight and consideration because the trial court is supposed to have watched the demeanour and conduct of the witness and is in a better position to appreciate their testimony. The High Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial court. In Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 , this Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Court further observed: “27. The Court further observed: “27. It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilized society. Suppose an innocent person is convicted of the offence of murder and is hanged, nothing further can undo the mischief for the wrong resulting from the unmerited conviction is irretrievable. To take another instance, if an innocent person is sent to jail and undergoes the sentence, the scars left by the miscarriage of justice cannot be erased by any subsequent act of expiration. Not many persons undergoing the pangs of wrongful conviction are fortunate like Dreyfus to have an Emile Zola to champion their cause and succeed in getting the verdict of guilt annulled. All this highlights the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice Such a risk can be minimized but not ruled out altogether It may in this connection be apposite to refer to the following observations of Sir Carleton Alien quoted on Page 157 of “The Proof of Guilt” by Glanville Williams, second edition: “I dare say some sentimentalists would assent to the proposition that it is better that a thousand, or even a million, guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer; but no responsible and practical person would accept such a view. For it is obvious that if our ratio is extended indefinitely, there comes a point when the whole system of justice has broken down and society is in a state of chaos.” 28. For it is obvious that if our ratio is extended indefinitely, there comes a point when the whole system of justice has broken down and society is in a state of chaos.” 28. The fact that there has to be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused and that in the absence of that it is not possible to record a finding of his guilt was stressed by this Court in the case of Shivaji Sahebrao, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , as is clear from the following observations: “Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely, may be guilty before a court, can be convicted and the mental distinction between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure considerations.” “9. The High Court while dealing with the appeals against the order of acquittal must keep in mind the following propositions laid down by this Court, namely, (i) the slowness of the appellate court to disturb a finding of fact; (ii) the noninterference with the order of acquittal where it is indeed only a case of taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court.” 8. In Arulvelu and another vs. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 , the Supreme Court after discussing the earlier judgments, observed in Para No. 36 as under: “36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judgment can not be set aside because the appellate court’s view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshaling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.” 7. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 394 , while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court’s interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view. 8. Scope of appeal against acquittal is well laid down in case of Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , it was observed: “42. 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, re-appreciate 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 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.” 9. Even recently, the Apex Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 has held as under: “39. (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.” 9. Even recently, the Apex Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 has held as under: “39. 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 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, re-appreciate 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. (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. 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.” 40. 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 Cr.P.C. 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 re-appreciate 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 acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. 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.” 41. 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: 41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. 41.2 That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record. 41.3 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. 42. 41.2 That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record. 41.3 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. 42. 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.” 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the appeal and confirm the acquittal. Resultantly, impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. R&P, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. 11. In view of the dismissal of the criminal appeal, the Criminal Revision Application shall also stand dismissed.