R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 2168 of 2026 ========================================================== STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RAJANBHAI ARJANBHAI@BUDDHABHAI ALGOTARA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR ROHAN H RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 21/09/2026 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI) 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (“learned Sessions Court” for short), in Sessions Case No.13 of 2023, whereby the respondents-accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, the appellant-State has preferred the present Appeal under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS” for short). 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. The complainant, Dalsukhram Bansiram Tilavat, was serving as a Police Sub-Inspector at Gangajaliya Police Station, Bhavnagar. He was investigating Accidental Death No.18/2022, registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short), which was reported on 27.10.2022 at about 14:20 hours. On 27.10.2022, the dead body of an unidentified male, aged about 40 years, was found lying by the side of the public road near the SBI ATM at Crescent Circle, R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 Bhavnagar. On information conveyed by Yusufbhai Pathan, Head Constable, S.O.G., to the Police Control Room, Bhavnagar, the same was recorded at Gangajaliya Police Station vide Station Diary Entry No.6/2022 on 27.10.2022 at about 09:35 hours. ASI K.B. Vaghela took the preliminary steps, had the inquest drawn through the Executive Magistrate, and sent the dead body to Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar, for post-mortem. Accidental death was thereafter registered on the report of Hanifbhai Ibrahimbhai Pathan, who had first seen the dead body. The deceased was subsequently identified as Bharatbhai, a native of village Trapaj within the jurisdiction of Alang Police Station, by his wife, Vasantben. She stated that on 26.10.2022 he had boarded an Eco car at the Trapaj bus stand bound for Bhavnagar and had not returned home. 2.2. The post-mortem report opined that the death of the deceased was caused by multiple blunt injuries, including a blunt injury to the head. In the course of investigation, the footage of the CCTV cameras installed in the vicinity of the place of recovery were examined. It allegedly showed that, on 27.10.2022 at about 03:14 hours, two persons were dragging the deceased by his hands along the road leading to the Jain Derasar, situated to the north of the place where the dead body was found. It further showed that, at about 03:27 hours, the deceased was being assaulted. The persons seen dragging the deceased were identified as Rajanbhai Arjanbhai alias Budhabhai Algotar and Kiranbhai Dipakbhai Algotar. The persons seen assaulting him were identified as Sanjaybhai Lalabhai Algotar and Kiranbhai Dipakbhai Algotar. All of them were residents of Juni Manekwadi, Bhavnagar, and were traced and questioned. It is the case of the prosecution that, suspecting the deceased to have stolen an Activa scooter, and as he did not disclose his name and address, the accused together assaulted him with a wooden stick, a plastic pipe, a hemp rope, and fists and kicks. Kiranbhai Dipakbhai Algotar allegedly R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 used the wooden stick, Rajanbhai Arjanbhai alias Budhabhai Algotar the black plastic pipe, Yashbhai Jesangbhai Mer the hemp rope, and Sanjaybhai Lalabhai Algotar fists and kicks. 2.3. On the allegation that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had assembled together and caused the death of the deceased by assaulting him all over the body, the complainant lodged a complaint on 28.10.2022 at Gangajaliya Police Station. It was registered as C.R. No.11198011221189 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Upon completion of the investigation, the accused were arrested, and a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, committed the case to the learned Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code, where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.13 of 2023. After due compliance with Section 207 of the Code, a charge under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act was framed under Section 228 of the Code at Exh.-13. The pleas of the respondents- accused were recorded at Exhs.-14 to 17. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution thereupon adduced oral and documentary evidence and closed its case by filing a closing purshis. 2.4. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Court, by the judgment and order dated 13.02.2026, acquitted the respondents-accused. The acquittal was under Section 235(1) of the Code, by giving them the benefit of doubt, of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Page 3 of 17 R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal under Section 419 of the BNSS. 3. Submissions on behalf of the Learned APP for the State: 3.1. Learned APP for the State submitted that the Learned Sessions Court has materially erred in law and on facts in acquitting the respondents-accused despite clear, convincing and reliable evidence proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Learned Sessions Court failed to properly appreciate the oral evidence on record. 3.2. As regards the medical evidence of Dr.Hemalbhai Kamleshbhai Moga (Exh.-80), the medical officer, deposed about 12 external injuries, namely, contusions on the arms, elbows, shoulders, torso, back, buttocks, thighs and knees. The Learned Sessions Court erred in holding that the injuries were not on vital parts and failed to consider the medical opinion that, taken together, the injuries caused haemorrhage and shock sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 3.3. The Learned Sessions Court adopted a hyper-technical approach in discarding the CCTV footage, although Munafbhai Mustufabhai Kureshi (Exh.-61) had produced the footage along with the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The visual evidence clearly showed the accused dragging and assaulting the deceased and ought not to have been rejected on a technical interpretation of the certificate, particularly when no attempt was even made to summon the person who had issued the certificate. 3.4. Even apart from the admissibility of the CCTV footage, R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 Rupdevsinh Raghuvirsinh Rathod (Exh.-109) had seen the footage and identified all 4 accused before the Court, and his evidence was not materially challenged in cross-examination. This oral identification is admissible evidence in itself and was wrongly ignored. 3.5. The motive was established through Munafbhai Dadubhai Kureshi (Exh.-73) and Kamleshbhai Batukbhai (Exh.-75), whose stolen Activa scooter caused the accused to suspect the deceased of being the thief, resulting in the lynching. The discovery panchnamas further proved the recovery of the pipe, stick and rope at the instance of the accused, with bloodstains corroborated by the FSL report. 3.6. Minor contradictions among police witnesses and panchas do not go to the root of the case and cannot displace an otherwise complete chain of circumstances, particularly when material witnesses had turned hostile due to their proximity to the accused. The FSL report is only one part of the evidence, and any technical defect therein cannot be allowed to override the CCTV footage, oral identification, discovery and post- mortem findings considered together. 3.7. The benefit of doubt given by the Learned Sessions Court is based on hypothetical considerations and amounts to a manifest error warranting reversal of the acquittal. Hence, it is prayed that the present appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside. 4. We have heard the learned APP for the State, at the stage of admission and carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Sessions Court. Page 5 of 17 R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 5. We have examined the deposition of Shehzad Mustufabhai Mirani (Exh.-70), whom the prosecution examined to prove the CCTV footage. He stated that he runs a motorcycle showroom in the name of Rajvi Motor near Crescent Circle, Bhavnagar. 6. Cameras are installed both inside and outside the showroom, and their footage is recorded on a computer system. On 28.10.2022, the police came to him, took away the CCTV footage recording and obtained his signature on a paper. He stated categorically that it did not happen that he copied the video file of the CCTV footage on a pen drive, handed it over to the police and issued a certificate in that regard. When shown the document marked 3/27, he identified his signature on it, and it was exhibited as Exh.-71. When shown the pen drive lying in the cover mentioned in the list at Exh.-11, he stated that he had not produced it and could not identify it. He admitted that the police had questioned him about the CCTV footage, but he did not support the facts recorded in his police statement in the slightest. On the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, he was therefore declared hostile and permitted to be cross- examined, yet nothing came out in support of his police statement. In cross-examination by the defence, he admitted that the police took away the DVR but that he does not know what was done with it. 7. He also admitted that he was not present at the showroom when the police took the DVR, that the police did not show him any footage, and that he did not identify any person. He further admitted that no copy of any DVR was made on a DVD, CD or pen drive in his presence, and that no footage was shown to him. The learned Sessions Court, on an appreciation of this deposition and the certificate at Exh.-71, held that the prosecution had not proved the certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. Page 6 of 17 R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 8. We find no reason to interfere with the above finding. This witness was the only person through whom the source of the electronic record and its transfer to the pen drive could have been established. His deposition, however, does not connect the pen drive with the showroom's DVR at any stage. He was not present when the DVR was taken and does not know what became of it. No copy was made in his presence, and he does not recognise the pen drive as one produced by him. Most importantly, he denies having copied the footage on a pen drive and issued a certificate in that regard. 9. A witness who, by his own deposition, neither prepared the copy nor issued a certificate for it cannot be treated as having proved the electronic record or the certificate. The mere identification of his signature on a paper that the police obtained from him does not prove that the contents of Exh.-71 are true, or that he made, as a person responsible for the device, the statements the law requires. 10. Since he was declared hostile and even the cross-examination by the prosecution brought nothing in support of his police statement, no part of his deposition can be relied upon to fill this lacuna. 11. The prosecution examined Roopdevsinh Raghuvirsinh Rathod (Exh.-109), who was serving as a Police Constable at Gangajaliya Talav Police Station, Bhavnagar, at the relevant time. His deposition is that on 27.10.2022, at about 7:00 a.m., a call was received that an unidentified body was lying near the SBI ATM, that K.B. Vaghela, A.S.I., registered a case of accidental death, and that P.S.I. Tilavat was investigating when his superior officer directed that the surrounding CCTV cameras be checked. On checking the CCTV of the Rajveer Suzuki showroom near R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 Ghantakarna Temple, Crescent, two persons were seen dragging the deceased from the direction of Manekwadi during the night, and thereafter two more persons who came on a bike were seen assaulting the deceased with fists and kicks. On further scrutiny, the persons were identified as history-sheeter Lalabhai Algotar and his son Sanjay Algotar. On inquiry at their house, Sanjay was found present and, on being questioned, disclosed that Rajan, Kiran and Yash were with him. This witness stated that he had himself watched the CCTV footage and seen the accused in it, that he could identify them if present in Court, and that he identified Sanjay, Rajan, Kiran and Yash, who were present in Court, as the persons he had seen in the footage. 12. In cross-examination, however, the witness admitted that he was required under the Gujarat Police Manual to maintain a patrol book recording his daily duties, but that his statement does not mention the date or time at which he viewed the CCTV footage, and that his patrol book records neither the date, time or place of viewing nor the persons in whose company he viewed it. He admitted that no panchnama was drawn of his viewing the footage with anyone, that he did not get the persons seen in the footage identified before the Mamlatdar, that he gave no description of those persons to the Investigating Officer, and that he never told the Investigating Officer that he could identify them if shown to him. He further admitted that no order for investigation had been given to him by his superior officer, and that he had not viewed any CCTV footage pursuant to any investigation entrusted to him. 13. We find that this witness's identification cannot be relied upon. He was under a statutory obligation to record his day's work in the patrol book, yet neither the date and time of viewing the footage nor the persons in whose presence he viewed it finds any legs to stand. No panchnama R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 recorded the viewing. He did not get the identification tested before the Mamlatdar, gave no description of the persons to the Investigating Officer, and did not even appraised the Investigating Officer that he could identify them later. He also admits that he had no order to investigate and did not view the footage in the course of any investigation entrusted to him. An identification made in Court for the first time, unsupported by any contemporaneous record, panchnama, prior description or Mamlatdar identification, and by a witness who was not even authorised to investigate, cannot form a safe basis for connecting the accused with the offence. The learned Sessions Court was right in declining to act upon this identification. 14. The learned Sessions Court, at the outset, noted that the deposition of Shehzad Mustufabhai Mirani (Exh.-70) was recorded only to prove the certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act at Exh.-71. His deposition is that the police came to him on 28.10.2022 and took away the CCTV footage recording, and that he signed a paper. He stated that it did not happen that he copied the CCTV video file on a pen drive, handed it to the police and issued a certificate in that regard. He also stated that no copy of the DVR was made on a DVD, CD or pen drive in his presence, and that no footage was shown to him. The learned Sessions Court held that, in these circumstances, the fact of the certificate under Section 65(B) was not proved beyond doubt. It further held that since the certificate at Exh.-71 was not proved in accordance with law, the accused could not be convicted on the CCTV footage alone. 15. We find that the certificate is meant to vouch for the electronic record and the manner in which it was copied and produced. Only the person in charge of the device can give that assurance. Here, the same person has said on oath that he neither copied the footage nor gave such a R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 certificate, and that the copying was not done in his presence. The certificate therefore has no reliable foundation. Since an unproved certificate makes the electronic record a weak piece of evidence against the accused, the footage cannot be the sole basis of a conviction. The learned Sessions Court was right in so holding. 16. The learned Sessions Court next considered together the evidence of the family members of the deceased, namely his wife Vasantben, his son and his nephew. Their evidence is that when the deceased was not found in the village, they inquired and learned that he had come to Bhavnagar in an Eco vehicle. They then came to Bhavnagar and looked for him. The police informed them that the deceased Bharatbhai had died and that some boys of the Bharwad community had killed him. They were then taken to the hospital to identify his body. The wife, Vasantben, in her police statement dated 29.10.2022, did not express any suspicion or doubt about any person in connection with her husband's death. The learned Sessions Court held that this evidence establishes only these facts and nothing more. 17. We find no error in the above view. These witnesses did not see the incident. Their evidence shows only that the deceased left the village, that he was searched for, that his death was communicated to them by the police, and that they identified the body. What they learned about the so called killers came from the police. It is second-hand information without any name attached to it, so it cannot prove who caused the death. The wife, who was the person most likely to voice a suspicion, named no one in her statement of 29.10.2022. This evidence therefore proves the death and the identity of the deceased, but it does not connect the present accused persons with the offence in any manner. Page 10 of 17 R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 18. The learned Sessions Court then examined the prosecution case in its own terms. According to the prosecution, the deceased Bharatbhai was going on an Activa scooter when the accused persons stopped him and questioned him about the scooter. Since he did not give a satisfactory explanation, they suspected him of having stolen it. They beat him with a plastic pipe, a bamboo stick, a rope, and with fists and kicks. The accused then telephoned the owner of the Activa and told him that someone was stealing his scooter and that he should come. They took the deceased with them on a motorcycle. At Ghantakarna Chowk, a man was sitting shirtless on the footpath, and, suspecting him of having stolen the Activa, the accused allegedly beat him to death. To prove this narrative, the prosecution examined the owner of the scooter, Kaushal Vinodbhai Shah, and the members of his household, Chirag Vinodbhai Shah and Vartik Chiragbhai Shah. These witnesses stated that on the night of 27.10.2022 they were sleeping at home. Regarding the alleged telephone call about the scooter being stolen, they stated that on coming down no man was present, and no person who had stolen the Activa was present either. They did not support the facts recorded in their police statements in the slightest. The learned Sessions Court held that this created doubt in the prosecution case. 19. We find that the owner and his household were the natural and necessary witnesses to prove the telephone call, the summoning of the owner, and the alleged theft of the scooter, which is the very reason the accused are said to have assaulted the deceased. Their deposition does not support any of these things. Once the alleged theft and the summons to the owner are not supported by the very persons who were said to have been called, the prosecution loses the basis of the motive and the sequence of events it has set up. The story that the accused suspected the deceased of theft and then telephoned the owner is left without support. Page 11 of 17 R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 This casts serious doubt on the prosecution case, and the learned Sessions Court rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. 20. We deem it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: “20. Lastly, this appeal also raised an important substantive question of law that whether the call records produced by the prosecution would be admissible under section 65A and 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, given the fact that the requirement of certification of electronic evidence has not been complied with as contemplated under the Act. The uncertainty of whether Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer & Ors; [(2014) 10 SCC 473] occupies the filed in this area of law or whether Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801 lays down the correct law in this regard has now been conclusively settled by this court by a judgement dated 14/07/2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [ (2020) 7 SCC 1] wherein the court has held that: “We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose. Anvar P.V. (supra), as clarified by us hereinabove, is the law declared by this Court on Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The judgment in Tomaso Bruno (supra), being per incuriam, does not lay down the law correctly. Also, the judgment in SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2011 reported as Shafhi Mohammad (supra) and the judgment dated 03.04.2018 reported as (2018) R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 5 SCC 311, do not lay down the law correctly and are therefore overruled. The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the “computer” happens to be a part of a “computer system” or “computer network” and it becomes impossible to physically bring such system or network to the Court, then the only means of providing information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4).” 21. It is apt to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: “26. At this stage, we would like to refer the decisions rendered by this Court on the aspect of interference of Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the Trial Court. 27. In the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka this Court held in paragraphs 39 to 42 as under: 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar,(2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.482-83, para 29) “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappacase [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri)325], SCC p. 432, para 42) R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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 emphasise 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.’ 40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) “8..… 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence, 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence, 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record, 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible, and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity, 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record, and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate court, in order to interfere with the judgment of R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court. 29. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court, it can be said that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Further, if the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. The following principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeals against an order of acquittal: (a) whether the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity, (b) whether the judgment is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence on record, (c) an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference.’ (d) the appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record, (e) if the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible, and (f) the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible. 22. In view of the aforesaid appreciation of the material on record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove that the present accused were the two persons who inflicted the fatal injuries, and that the view taken by the learned Sessions Court is a plausible view, calling for no interference at this stage. The learned Sessions Court has held that the R/CR.A/2168/2026(GJHC240668022026) ORDER DATED: 21/09/2026 two material witnesses do not identify the present accused as the assailants, the last-seen-together circumstance is not proved, the medical evidence proves the cause of death but not the identity of the assailants, and the investigation papers cannot fill the lacuna regarding identity. The findings are not shown to be perverse, contrary to the record, or unsustainable. No arguable ground for admission is made out. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed at this stage. 23. Thus, in a nutshell, CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution can be admitted in evidence only if it is accompanied by a valid certificate. In the present case, the certificate at Exh.-71 was not proved in accordance with law, because the person who was said to have issued it denied having copied the footage on a pen drive or having given any such certificate. The prosecution cannot cure this defect by oral evidence. The deposition of Roopdevsinh Raghuvirsinh Rathod (Exh.-109), who said that he watched the footage and recognised the accused in it, is only oral evidence about the contents of the electronic record, and it cannot take the place of the certificate that the law requires. The learned Sessions Court has rightly held that the CCTV footage could not be relied upon, and that the accused could not be convicted on that footage alone. 24. For the forgoing reasons, the present appeal is dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be remitted to the concerned Court. (ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) MVP Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/09/2026 12:13:44