Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court

"The 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... Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court." Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of a respondent accused in a wildlife poaching case, reiterating the stringent parameters for interference by an appellate court against an order of acquittal.

A bench of Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak observed that when two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court must not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

The State of Gujarat had filed an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the CrPC, challenging the 2009 acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar. The prosecution alleged that the accused was part of an international poaching syndicate involved in the illegal hunting of lions—a Schedule-I animal under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972—and that his involvement was established through telephonic communication records recovered from co-accused. The trial court had initially convicted the respondent based on circumstantial evidence, but the appellate court subsequently acquitted him, citing a lack of cogent evidence.

The primary question before the High Court was whether the appellate court committed a manifest error of law or fact in reversing the conviction. The court was specifically called upon to determine if the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt or if the acquittal was based on a sustainable appreciation of the available evidence.

The High Court scrutinized the trial court's reliance on circumstantial evidence, particularly the recovery of a slip containing the respondent's phone numbers. It noted that the prosecution failed to provide technical evidence, such as call detail records, to establish a link between the accused and the alleged poaching gang.

Lack of Incriminating Evidence

The court observed that the lower appellate court correctly identified that the original conviction was based on suspicion and conjecture. It noted that the Scientific Officer who conducted the lie-detection test was never examined, rendering the report inadmissible. Furthermore, the recovery of the incriminating chit was not supported by reliable panch witness testimony, creating a significant gap in the chain of circumstances.

Scope of Appellate Power in Acquittals

The court underscored that while appellate courts possess the power to re-appreciate evidence, this power is restricted by the principle of "double presumption." The court remarked that an appellate court should not substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the latter's approach is vitiated by manifest illegality or perversity.

Refusal to Interfere with Acquittal

Reaffirming the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, the bench emphasized that "flourishes of language" regarding the court's power to review evidence do not override the fundamental jurisprudential protection afforded to an acquitted accused. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a "well-nigh impossible" scenario where the trial court’s rejection of evidence could be considered irrational.

"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."

Finding no merit in the State's appeal, the High Court dismissed the challenge and confirmed the judgment of acquittal. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellate court's appreciation of evidence remained well within the established legal framework for criminal appeals.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2026