AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.100 of 1997, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused (respondents herein) from the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
In response to this Court’s order dated 01.07.2026, the learned APP has received a report indicating that although a non-bailable warrant has been issued against accused – Bharat Hasmukhrai Joshi, he could not be found at the mentioned address and therefore, the non-bailable warrant remained unexecuted. The report submitted by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Rajkot has been received and taken on record.
Short facts of the prosecution case are that the learned Public Prosecutor, Rajkot filed a complaint before the Sessions Court, Rajkot on 24.07.1997 pursuant to the GR dated 07.04.1997 under Section 199(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That, the respondent-accused no.1 is the owner-cum-Editor of Nutan Saurashtra Dainik. That, on 08.11.1996, the news was published to the effect that higher officers of the police department at the level of Police Commissioner are taking bribes. It was published that the truck owners, rickshaw owners, gambling house and illegal liquor manufacturers are the main sources of income. That, it was alleged that Sanjeev Bhatt was appointed as DCP and he stopped such illegal activities. That, the professionals of lottery continued their illegal activities. That, there was a conflict between Police Commissioner and DCP. Rs.50 lacs were paid and Rs. 50 lacs were likely to be paid. That, the accused faced a trial being Sessions Case no. 100/1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court vide Exhibit 59 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot.
It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.
After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and have stated that they are innocent.
After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal.
Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat at length.
Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and order of acquittal. She has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the defamatory news in Nutan Saurashtra Dainik by way of cross-examination of the complainant. Ms. Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper perspective and even the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. She has further submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on record, based on erroneous appreciation of material evidence, and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in law, thereby calling for interference by this Court.
According to Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials on record. The trial Court has framed the issues in paragraph 7 and recorded the findings from para no. 9 onwards of its impugned judgment. The trial Court has dealt with the evidence of each witness in detail and, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, recorded its reasons from paragraph 37 onwards of its impugned judgment. Upon perusal of the reasons recorded by the trial Court and the decisions referred to by the trial Court in paragraphs 47 to 50 of its impugned judgment, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order and there is no any illegality and infirmity found in the judgment and order.
It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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 their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
Further, 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. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with which they are charged.
The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos. 42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in [2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
“20.At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:
“42.…. (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3)Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4)An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5)If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21.In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record.
On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.