2026 Supreme(Guj) 865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Bharatbhai Malubhai Gohil & Ors. – Respondent 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1106 of 2010
Decided on : 24-04-2026

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must not interfere unless the trial court's judgment is perverse, based on a manifest misreading of evidence, or is clearly untenable. A reasonable view taken by the trial court sustains the double presumption of innocence protecting the respondent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 504 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Bombay Police Act - Section 135 - Appeal against acquittal - Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - Hostile witnesses - Significant contradictions between medical evidence and witness testimony - Double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused - Appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court’s reasoning is perverse or based on a misreading of material evidence. (Paras 1, 6, 8, 10-17)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Powers of the appellate court to review evidence in an appeal against acquittal are extensive but subject to the rule of prudence - Interference is warranted only if the judgment suffers from patent perversity or material illegality and no two reasonable views are possible. (Paras 11, 13-15, 17)

Facts of the case:
The State filed an appeal against an order of acquittal for various offences related to rioting, hurt, and criminal assault. The prosecution alleged the accused assaulted the complainant and other family members, causing various physical injuries. The trial court acquitted the accused citing a lack of direct evidence, hostile panch witnesses, and significant contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and the medical history provided.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the aggressor, noting the existence of a prior cross-complaint and the inability of the investigating agency to prove the sequence of events. The appellate court found the trial court's assessment of evidence to be just and balanced, noting no manifest illegality or perversity.

Issues: Whether the trial court’s acquittal order was based on a flawed appreciation of evidence and whether the appellate court is justified in interfering with the findings of the lower court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the trial court has arrived at a plausible conclusion based on the evidence presented, the appellate court must respect the double presumption of innocence. Interference is restricted to cases where the findings are perversely detached from the medical and oral records, which was not the case here.

Result: Appeal dismissed.