An appellate court must maintain a restrained approach toward an acquittal, interfering only if the trial court’s findings are perverse. The double presumption of innocence reinforces the need for the prosecution to provide consistent, beyond-reasonable-doubt evidence, failing which the benefit of doubt must favor the accused.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “the Code”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.08 of 2002, whereby the learned trial judge acquitted the respondent accused of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”).

2. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:-

2.1 Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that the complainant, namely, Shailendrasinh along with his wife, i.e. the accused No.1 and two children were residing in servant quarters of Bungalow No.22, Sector-19, Gandhingar. The complainant was serving as a watchman at Akshardham. The wife of the complainant, namely, Sonaliben viz. the accused No.1 was doing the household work in Bungalow No.22 and the accused No.2 was the driver of the owner of the Bungalow No.22 and was residing near another servant quarter. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused No.2 used to come to the house of the complainant and talk with his wife, i.e. the accused No.1, which created doubt in the mind of the complainant about the accused No.2 being of a bad character. Therefore, the complainant asked the accused No.1 not to talk with the accused No.2, whereupon the accused No.1 replied that she was not having any such relation with the accused No.2. However, the accused No.2 was coming to the house of the complainant now and then, and the accused No.1 also used to talk to him, and therefore, the complainant doubted the character of the accused No.1. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 15.08.2001, the complainant was having night shift, i.e. from 1:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. However, the complainant informed his wife at 5:00 p.m. in the evening that he is going to his service. Thereafter, he went to Akshardham, took the dinner at about 7:00 p.m. and returned back to home at about 10:00 p.m. from Akshardham. The complainant hidden himself behind the bushes grown in the surrounding of bungalow to keep a watch upon his wife. That, at around 10:30 p.m., the accused No.2 came to his quarter and switched on the light. On coming to know that the accused No.2 has come to his house, the accused No.1 changed her cloths and went into the bungalow for verifying whether the complainant has come back or not, and after making sure that the complainant did not come back, she closed the door of her house and went to the quarter of accused No.2. Thereafter, the complainant followed his wife, however, on hearing some noise, the accused No.2 told the accused No.1 that someone has come. Therefore, the accused No.1 got frightened and came back to her house where the complainant slapped her and asked as to why she went to the quarter of accused No.2. it is further the case of the prosecution that on 16.01.2008, the wife of the owner of the bungalow asked the complainant to call the driver Sandip, i.e. the accused No.2. However, the accused No.2 was not found and the complainant informed about the same to the wife of the owner of the bungalow. That, at around 8:00 a.m., the accused No.2 Sandip went outsi