Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 284 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Lalaji Prabhuji Thakor

2025-03-18

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : (S. V. PINTO, J.) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramgam (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 on 25.04.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1 The accused No. 1 was the husband of deceased Geetaben and the accused No.2 was the sister-in-law (wife of the brother of the accused No. 1). The accused No. 1 and 2 had illicit relations between them and both of them used to mentally and physically harass deceased Geetaben to such an extent that on 12-11-2007 at around 17:00 Hrs the deceased sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. The complainant Hiraben Mavjibhai Thakore, the mother of deceased Geetaben filed the complaint before the Viramgam Town Police Station under Sections 498- A, 306, 201 and 114 of the IPC on 13-11-2007 at 18:30 hours, which was registered at Viramgam Town Police Station I-C.R.No.81 of 2007. 2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Viramgam and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008. 2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 4 and 5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4] The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. ORAL EVIDENCES Sr. No. P.W. Name of the prosecution witnesses Exh. 1. 1 Babubhai Arjanbhai Patel 9 2. 2 Hiraben Mavjibhai Thakore 11 3. 3 Jyotsnaben Hathaji Thakor 13 4. 4 Ramanbhai Mavjibhai Thakor 14 5. 5 Roopsangji Vishaji Thakore 15 6. 6 Jadavbhai Kuberbhai Prajapati 17 7. 7 Jivanbhai Dhudabhai Patani 18 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1. Panchnama of Place of offence 10 2. Complaint 12 3. Analysis Report of FSL 19 4. Wireless Message 20 5. Catalog 21 6. Report of heinous offence 22 7. Movement register 23 8. Yadi of examination of Muddamal 24 9. Receipt of received Muddamal 25 10 Letter of examination of Muddamal 26 11 Report of FSL 27 2.5] After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 8, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and after the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit the accused from all the charges leveled against them. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Viral Vyas for learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the respondents -accused. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution, which is corroborated by the deposition of the medical officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Viral Vyas for learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the respondents-original accused submits that the judgments and orders have been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected. 7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. 7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court 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 v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831 , this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal 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 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". (emphasis supplied) 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. 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. 8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after reappreiation, the view taken by the learned trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same. 9. As the appeal pertains to a case under Section 306 of the IPC, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya Pradhesh Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 (@ SLP(Cr) No. 11868/2023) passed on 17 th January, 2025 which is as under: 11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:- “306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 12. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:- “306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:- “107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly - instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly - engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:- "3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. …" 14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 , this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306. 15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 , this Court held as under:- “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied] 16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , wherein it was held as under:- 41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record where-from an inference of the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.” Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:- 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” [Emphasis supplied] 10. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Babubhai Arjanbhai Patel at Exhibit 9 and the witness is the panchwitness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 10. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is living in Bhojwa village for many years and immediately after the incident the parents of Geetaben were informed by telephone and they came and the Sarpanch and other elders were also present. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is living in Bhojwa village for many years and immediately after the incident the parents of Geetaben were informed by telephone and they came and the Sarpanch and other elders were also present. The Sarpanch and other elders told the parents of Geetaben to file the police complaint and call the police but they did not want to file the complaint and hence the cremation of Geetaben was done. That at that time they refused to file the complaint and a compromise was arrived at in the presence of the Sarpanch and other elders of the village and in all their presence the cremation of deceased Geetaben was done. The accused No. 2 is residing at Ahmedabad with her husband for many years and the say of the complainant that they have illicit relations between them is false. 10.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Hiraben Mavjibhai Thakore at Exhibit 11 and the witness is the mother of deceased Geetaben and the complainant. The witness has fully supported the contents of the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 12. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that on the 12 th , her husband had come in the afternoon for lunch and she had informed him about the incident, but he did not show his willingness to come to Bhojwa village. That she went to Bhojwa village and immediately fell unconscious and she does not know how she was brought from Bhojwa village to Kalyanpura. That she regained consciousness on the next day in the morning between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. and the Medical Officer was called at Kalyanpura as she was unconscious. Dr. Kanubhai was called after she regained consciousness and her son did not come to the house of the accused No. 1. That she spoke to her husband and son after she regained consciousness at Kalyanpura. That she filed the complaint after the members of her family thought about it and the complaint was filed accordingly. That she has not mentioned in the complaint that she was unconscious. That she spoke to her husband and son after she regained consciousness at Kalyanpura. That she filed the complaint after the members of her family thought about it and the complaint was filed accordingly. That she has not mentioned in the complaint that she was unconscious. 10.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Jyotsnaben Hathaji Thakorat at Exhibit 13 and the witness is the friend of the complainant and her neighbour and she has stated that on 12-11-2007 she had accompanied the complainant Hiraben to Bhojwa village as the accused No. 1 had telephoned Hiraben. That when they reached the house of the accused No. 1 at around 5 p.m. she and the complainant saw burnt mattresses outside and a lot of water flowing in the house. That no-one was present and they asked the neighbours but they all said that they are not from Bhojwa village. That Hiraben had an inclination that her daughter was burnt and she fell unconscious and while she was taking Hiraben in a rickshaw towards their village Raman-the son of Hiraben met them at Bhojwa station that he too accompanied them in the rickshaw and they came to their village and at around 10.30 p.m. they sprinkled water on Hiraben and she regained consciousness That on the next day, Hiraben filed the complaint and whenever Geetaben would come to her parental home she would come to visit her and tell her that her husband was having illicit relations with his sister-in-law and they and they used to have a fight about the same. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the statement before the police, she has not mentioned that they went into the house and saw no one present and they asked the neighbours and Hiraben had fallen unconscious and while they were in the rickshaw, they met Raman the son of Hiraben and that they brought Hiraben back to the village and she regained consciousness at around 10.30 p.m. when they sprinkled water on her. 10.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Ramanbhai Mavjibhai Thakor at Exhibit 14 and the witness is the is the brother of deceased Geetaben and he has stated that on 12-11-2007, while he was at his job at around 12 noon, his mother phoned him from Kalyanpura and told him that his brother-in-law had called him to Bhojwa. His mother told him to directly go to Bhojwa and she would come on her own and he immediately left Dholka and went to Bhojwa and reached between 5 p.m. - 5.30 p.m. That when he reached Bhojwa station, he saw his mother lying on the road at the station and his aunt Jyotsnaben was with her and he took them to Kalyanpura. That he did not go to the house of the accused No. 1 and he went and called his relatives and told them that his mother was unconscious That Jyotsnaben had told him that when they went to the house of Geetaben, she was not found and they saw burnt quilts and his mother had fallen unconscious and when he inquired from her, she told him that Geeta might have expired and they would have burned her. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has not mentioned the fact stated by him before the Court in his statement before the police. 10.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Roopsangji Vishaji Thakore at Exhibit 15 and the witness is the Sarpanch of Bhojwa village, who has stated that on 12-11-2007 he was at his house when he was informed that Geetaben had set herself ablaze and she had expired. That they called her parents and all the relatives and everyone was present including the in-laws of Geetaben. That he told them to file the complaint and call the police but they said they did not want to file the complaint and the cremation of Geetaben was done. The neighbours had stated that there was no quarrel or fight with anyone and no one had stated that there was any dispute between Geetaben and her husband. That he told them to file the complaint and call the police but they said they did not want to file the complaint and the cremation of Geetaben was done. The neighbours had stated that there was no quarrel or fight with anyone and no one had stated that there was any dispute between Geetaben and her husband. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the accused No. 2 was residing from three to four years at Ahmedabad with her husband and at the time of the incident she was not at Bhojwa village. That in the cremation of Geetaben-the brother of Geetaben and her parents and other relatives were present. 10.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Ashmatben wife of Mahadevji Thakore at Exhibit 16 and the witness is the sister-in-law of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that whenever Geeta would come to her parental home, she would tell her about the illicit relations between the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she has not stated these facts in her statement before the police and she has not mentioned that Geeta had any harassment from her in-laws in her police statement. That after the incident all the members of the family had gathered together and they decided to file the complaint and thereafter the complaint was filed. 10.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Jadhavjibhai Kuberbhai Prajapati and the witness is residing near the house of the accused No. 1. The witness has stated that on the day of the incident he was at his home when he heard somebody shouting “burning burning”. He ran and saw a number of persons gathered near the house of the accused No. 1 and people were trying to put out the fire. The people had said that the wife of the accused No. 1 was burning as he is a patient of hypertension, he could not see the same and he went away home. That later on he came to know that the wife of the accused No 1 had expired. The people had said that the wife of the accused No. 1 was burning as he is a patient of hypertension, he could not see the same and he went away home. That later on he came to know that the wife of the accused No 1 had expired. The parents of the deceased had come and they decided not to file a case and compromised the matter and thereafter the cremation of deceased Geetaben had taken place. That he does not know how and for what reasons the lady had burned herself. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is a neighbour of the accused No. 1 and after the incident the parents, brother and other relatives of the deceased had come to Bhojwa and the Sarpanch of Bhojwa was also called and in the presence of the sarpanch, both the parties had a compromise. That the brother, the father and other relatives of the deceased were present for the cremation of the deceased and the elder brother of the accused No. 1 is residing with his family at Ahmedabad. 10.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Jivanbhai Dhudabhai Patani at Exhibit 18 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated entire procedure that was undertaken by him during the Investigation. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that at the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant was accompanied by two to three other persons including her son. 11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the incident has occurred on 12-11-2007 at 17:00 hours and the complaint has been filed on the next day i.e. on 13-11-2007 at 18:30 hours. It has emerged on record that immediately after the parents of the deceased were informed, the complainant Hiraben, neighbour Jyotsnaben and Ramanbhai, the brother of the deceased and other relatives immediately went to Bhojwa village and they were present for the final rites. As per the complaint she fell unconscious and she took treatment of Dr. Kanubhai but no evidence of Dr. Kanubhai has been produced on record. Prosecution Witness No.2 - Hiraben Mavjibhai Thakor is the complainant and mother of the deceased -Geetaben. As per the complaint she fell unconscious and she took treatment of Dr. Kanubhai but no evidence of Dr. Kanubhai has been produced on record. Prosecution Witness No.2 - Hiraben Mavjibhai Thakor is the complainant and mother of the deceased -Geetaben. Prosecution Witness No.3 Jyotsnaben Hathaji Thakur is the neighbour of the complainant and Prosecution Witness No.4 Ramanbhai Mavjibhai Thakur is the brother of the deceased and if the depositions of all the witnesses are perused, there are major contradictions in their evidence regarding the incident and particularly about the details when they went to Bhojwa village. Prosecution Witness No.5 Rupsangji Vishaji Thakur is an independent witness and was the Sarpanch of Bhojwa village and he has stated that at the time of the incident, the complainant and her family members and other relatives were present and they had decided not to file the complaint and he had told them to file the complaint but they had a compromise and did not choose to file the complaint. The main reason for the occurrence of the incident is the allegations of illicit relations between the accused Nos. 1 and 2 but there is no evidence that has emerged on record about any illicit relationship between the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The evidence is that the accused No. 2 was residing at Ahmedabad with her husband- the elder brother of the accused No. 1 for many years and Prosecution Witness No.7 Jadhavbhai Kuberbhai Prajapati, who is a neighbour of the deceased has clearly stated that there was no illicit relations between the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2. Admittedly, no postmortem was done and there is no iota of evidence of any quarrel between the accused and the deceased immediately preceding the incident and there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused No. 1 or the accused No. 2 was present at the house at the time when the incident took place. The neighbours have categorically stated that there was no quarrel between them and the learned trial Court has appreciated all the evidence on record. 12. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Mahendra Awase (supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 12. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Mahendra Awase (supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against him. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of extending benefit of doubt and acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 13. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 on 25.04.2008, is hereby confirmed. 14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.