Holding

The court held that the prosecution established the guilt of accused 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and that the acquittal of accused 3 was justified.

Summary

The case concerns the murder of Sureshbhai Raval, who was attacked with swords by accused Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai Parmar and Dashrathbhai Ambalal Raval, leading to his death; a third accused, Gangaben, was also present and assaulted the complainant. The trial court convicted the first two under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while acquitting Gangaben. Both the convicted appellants and the State appealed, challenging the conviction and the acquittal respectively. The High Court examined eyewitness testimony, forensic serology reports, recovered weapons, and the chain of circumstantial evidence, finding the evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of the first two beyond reasonable doubt and insufficient to establish common intention for the third. Consequently, the Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the convictions and life sentences, and confirmed the acquittal of Gangaben.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Whether accused 3 shared the common intention required for liability under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.
The admissibility and evidentiary value of the forensic serology report and the recovered swords under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Whether inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony affect the reliability of the conviction.
Whether the appellate court may set aside the trial court's findings on conviction and acquittal.

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Act, 1951s. 135
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 27, s. 32(1)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 323, s. 34, s. 504, s. 506(2)

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCcommon intentionforensic serologyweapon recoverySection 27 Evidence Actappeal against convictionacquittalcircumstantial evidenceeyewitness testimonyIndian Penal CodeIndian Evidence ActCriminal Procedure Code

Judgment

R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1515 of
2013

With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1315 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

=========================================
PARMAR CHHAGANBHAI BHOJABHAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
C B DHOLAKIA(7493) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BHAVESH B SARODE(6454) for the Appellant(s) No. 2
MR JAGDISHBHAI B SHRIMALI(10628) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YOGESH G KANADE(3114) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KANVA ANTANI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 24/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2011,
whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the original accused
Nos. 1 Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai Parmar and 2 Dashrathbhai
Ambalal Raval for the offence punishable under Section 302 read

Page 1 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them
to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default,
simple imprisonment for one month while acquitting the original
accused No.3 Gangaben w/o Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai Parmar of all
the charges under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506(2), 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the
State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1315 of 2013 against the
acquittal of accused No.3, whereas original accused Nos. 1 and 2
have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2013 against their
conviction and sentence. Both the appeals arise out of the same
judgment and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.05.2011
around 17:00 hours in the evening, at Chandigadh area near Jogani
Mata Temple, Sujatpura Road, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana, a
quarrel took place between the complainant Ashaben w/o
Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai Raval and accused No.3 Gangaben w/o
Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai Parmar on account of a trivial incident the
previous day 23.05.2011 involving water splashing from a pit on
accused No.3 while the complainant's son was playing. It is alleged
that accused No.3 instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 Chhaganbhai
Bhojabhai Parmar and Dashrathbhai Ambalal Raval, who were
armed with swords, to attack the deceased Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai
Raval - husband of the complainant. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are
stated to have inflicted blows with swords on vital parts of the body
of the deceased, including the chest, back of shoulder, abdomen,
hands and face. The deceased, upon sensing the attack, tried to
escape from the scene but was allegedly pursued and further
assaulted by accused Nos.1 and 2 near the house of witness
Monghabhai Lilabhai Desai. As a result of these blows on vital parts
of the body with a dangerous weapon, the deceased sustained

Page 2 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

multiple deep incised and penetrating wounds, started bleeding
profusely and collapsed. Upon hearing the screams and commotion,
the complainant Ashaben and other relatives, including Raval
Kantibhai Jakshibhai and nephew Ankur Bachubhai Raval, rushed
to the spot and witnessed the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The
accused also assaulted the complainant by grabbing her hair and
beating her severely. On seeing people gathering at the spot, the
accused fled away in a rickshaw, threatening the family with dire
consequences. Immediately thereafter, the injured deceased was
taken by the complainant, Raval Kantibhai Jakshibhai, Thakor
Ratuji and others first to Kadi Government Hospital via 108
ambulance and, owing to the seriousness of the injuries, was
shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for specialized treatment.
Unfortunately, during the course of treatment at Ahmedabad Civil
Hospital, Sureshbhai succumbed to the injuries sustained. It is the
case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2, with the common
intention and knowledge that the blows inflicted by a dangerous
weapon - sword on the vital part were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, intentionally caused the death of
Sureshbhai and thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while
accused No.3 shared the common intention by instigation and
assault on the complainant and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, apart from other offences
under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) IPC and Section 135 of the
Bombay Police Act.

3. Upon registration of the FIR being Kadi Police Station C.R.
No.111/2011, the investigation was initially carried out by PSI T.J.
Vaghela. Statements of the complainant and other material
witnesses were recorded, and upon the death of Sureshbhai at

Page 3 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, PSO Jashubhai Jethabhai Parmar was
deputed to conduct the inquest and collect the post-mortem report
and death certificate. PSI Alpeshkumar Vadilal Rajgor, who later
took over the investigation, prepared the panchnama of the scene
of offence, recorded further statements, arrested the accused, and
in the presence of panch witnesses recovered two swords (one big
and one small) used in the assault at the instance of accused Nos.1
and 2 from bushes near ONGC well. The muddamal articles,
including blood-stained clothes of the accused, were seized,
necessary medical papers and FSL reports were collected and, on
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the
learned JMFC, Kadi, where it was registered as Criminal Case
No.821 of 2011, which was committed to the Sessions Court and
registered as Sessions Case No.100 of 2011.

4. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana
framed the charges against the accused and proceeded with the
trial. In order to establish the charges levelled against the accused,
the prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses and produced and
relied upon 35 documentary evidences. After completion of the
prosecution evidence, the further statement of the accused was
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused
denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them and
pleaded innocence, asserting that they had been falsely implicated
in the case due to prior enmity.

5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as
many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents.

Oral Evidences:

Sr. Exh. Particulars
No.

Page 4 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

1 12 Dr. Bakulbhai Prabhubhai Patel
2 17 Ashaben Sureshbhai Raval

3 19 Pankajbhai Lakhamanji Thakor

4 27 Raval Kantibhai Vershibhai

5 28 Monghabhai Lilabhai Desai

6 29 Ankurbhai Bachubhai Raval

7 30 Mukhtyar Amirmiya Dolani

8 36 Patel Ramesh bhai Gokaldas

9 41 Dr. Hetal Chinubhai Patel
10 45 Kiritbhai Chandulal Jani
11 47 Pareshkumar Chandubhai Patel
12 48 Jashubhai Jethabhai Parmar
13 52 Dilawarkhan Aajamkhan
14 56 Takhuji Javanji Vaghela
15 64 Jashvantbhai Moghjibhai
16 66 Alpeshkumar Vadilal Rajgor

Documentary Evidences:

Sr. Exh. Particulars
No.
1 13 Certificate of treatment of the deceased at Kadi
CHC

2 15 Case papers

3 18 Complaint / FIR

4 20 Panchnama of the scene of offence / crime scene
panchnama

5 21 to 26 Muddamal slips (seized property / evidence slips)

6 31 Panchnama as per Section-27

7 32 Muddamal slip

Page 5 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

8 32 to 33 Muddamal slips

9 34 Inquest panchnama

10 35 Panchnama of seizure of the deceased's clothes

11 37 Panchnama of the physical condition of the accused
persons and seizure of their clothes

12 38 to 40 Muddamal slips

13 42 List

14 43 P.M. Note

15 44 Certificate of Cause of Death

16 46 Copy of the notification / proclamation regarding
weapons / arms license

17 49 Duty Report from Kadi Hospital

18 50 List prepared for taking action based on the Duty

19 51 List

20 53 Copy of Station Diary

21 54 Depute order

22 55 List prepared for conducting post-mortem
proceedings

23 57 Report prepared for registering the offence

24 58 On-site copy of the post-mortem form

25 59 Report sent to the Executive Magistrate,
Ahmedabad, for conducting inquest panchnama of
the body

26 60 Receipt of taking possession of the body

27 61 Receipt regarding handling of the body

28 62 Blood sample slip

29 63 Mobile Investigation Van FSL Mahesana Certificate

Page 6 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

30 65 Report sent to the Mamlatdar Shri, Kadi, for
preparing the map of the scene of offence

31 67 Muddamal dispatch note

32 68 Receipt of Muddamal received by FSL

33 69 Forwarding letter of the F.S.L. Ahmedabad
34 70 F.S.L Report
35 71 F.S.L serological report

6. Learned advocates appearing for the appellants–accused
Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai Parmar and Dashrathbhai Ambalal Raval
have vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained. They
contended that the prosecution case rests primarily on the
testimony of the complainant Ashaben PW-2, who is the wife of the
deceased, with no independent eyewitness to the entire assault. It
was urged that her evidence contains certain variations when
compared with the FIR, particularly regarding attribution of blows,
precise place of assault, and sequence of events. They further
pointed out that the scene of offence panchnama shows no blood
stains at the complainant’s house, that Monghabhai PW-5 denied
assault inside his premises, and that some panch witnesses gave
contradictory depositions. While the FSL report confirms the
deceased’s blood group on the clothes of the accused, it was
argued that this does not conclusively prove that the appellants
inflicted the fatal blows, as proximity during the incident cannot be
ruled out. In view of these submissions, it was prayed that the
conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court
cannot be sustained and the appeals be allowed.

7. Opposing the contentions, learned APP for the State stoutly
defended the impugned judgment and order of the learned

Page 7 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

Sessions Court, submitting that the conviction rests on a cogent
and reliable chain of circumstances fully satisfying the principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He highlighted: (i) the
eyewitness account of complainant Ashaben PW-2 who saw accused
Nos.1 and 2 inflicting sword blows on vital parts of the deceased
and accused No.3 assaulting her; (ii) evidence of Monghabhai
Lilabhai Desai PW-5 corroborating that the deceased ran to his
house shouting for help with accused Nos.1 and 2 chasing him with
blood-stained swords; (iii) postmortem report at Exh-43
establishing homicidal death due to penetrating incised wounds on
vital parts, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death and consistent with sword blows; (iv) swords recovered at
the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, corroborated by panchnama; (v) FSL serological
report confirming deceased’s blood group on clothes of all three
accused; (vi) proved motive through prior quarrels and earlier
complaint; and (vii) no plausible explanation offered by the accused
in statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He submitted that the
prosecution has established guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and the Sessions Court
rightly convicted them. He conceded minor contradictions in ocular
account but maintained they do not affect the core case. Regarding
accused No.3, he submitted her acquittal is justified as evidence
falls short of proving common intention for murder.

8. Having heard the learned advocates for the appellants–
accused and the learned APP for the State, and having carefully
considered the entire evidence on record, the findings of the
learned Sessions Court, the nature of the incident, and the rival
submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the chain
of circumstances is complete, continuous, and unbreakable so as to

Page 8 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

exclude every reasonable possibility consistent with the innocence
of accused Nos.1 and 2 and to establish their guilt for murder
beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular account of Ashaben PW-2,
though containing certain variations vis-à-vis the FIR, is
substantially reliable when read as a whole; such variations
regarding specific roles, place, and sequence are natural in a
sudden, traumatic incident witnessed under extreme stress and do
not go to the root of the matter. The absence of blood stains at the
complainant’s house per scene panchnama does not discredit her
version, as blood trail may have begun during chase. Monghabhai
PW-5 provides independent corroboration on the chase with blood-
stained swords. Panch witnesses' contradictions do not render
recoveries unreliable, as the Investigating Officer's evidence and
FSL corroboration sustain the link under Section 27. The FSL
report, proving deceased’s blood on accused's clothes, combined
with motive, medical evidence, and chase, forms a complete chain
pointing unerringly to guilt.

9. The record demonstrates that the ocular account of Ashaben
PW-2, corroborated by Monghabhai PW-5 on chase, the
postmortem establishing homicidal death by sharp weapon on vital
parts, recovery of swords at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2,
and FSL confirmation of deceased’s blood on clothes of all accused
create a chain that excludes reasonable doubt regarding
involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the murder. The prosecution
has discharged the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable
doubt under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for accused
Nos.1 and 2.

10. From the evidence on record, particularly the post-mortem
report at Exh-43 and testimony of Medical Officer Dr. Hetal

Page 9 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

Chinubhai Patel PW-9, it is clear that the deceased sustained
multiple deep incised and penetrating wounds on vital parts,
including a penetrating chest wound entering the lung cavity
causing massive internal bleeding, sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death. These injuries were caused by sharp
cutting weapons like swords, consistent with the muddamal
weapons recovered. The medical evidence, coupled with recovery
and FSL, establishes that the assault was carried out with force,
with knowledge that such acts were likely to cause death.

11. The prosecution has examined several witnesses, including
the complainant Ashaben Sureshbhai Raval PW-2, Monghabhai
Lilabhai Desai PW-5, Ankur Bachubhai Raval PW-6, Dr. Bakulbhai
Prabhubhai Patel PW-1, Dr. Hetal Chinubhai Patel PW-9, police
witnesses such as PSI T.J. Vaghela, PSO Jashubhai Jethabhai
Parmar, PI Alpeshkumar Vadilal Rajgor, and panch witnesses. On
perusal of their entire testimonies read together with the medical
evidence, recovery panchnamas, and FSL reports, the factum of the
deceased being assaulted with swords on vital parts by accused
Nos.1 and 2, followed by his collapse and subsequent death due to
haemorrhage and shock, stands firmly established. The manner in
which the occurrence took place is that the accused, in the course
of an ongoing quarrel and instigated by accused No.3, assaulted
the deceased with swords while he was at or near his house. The
deceased tried to escape and was chased and further assaulted.
Immediately thereafter, the accused persons fled, and the deceased
was taken to hospital where he succumbed. Thus, the prosecution
witnesses, when their depositions are read together with the
medical, recovery, and FSL evidence, clearly establish that the
death of the deceased was homicidal and not natural. The evidence
on record proves beyond reasonable doubt that the offence

Page 10 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

committed attracts the offence of murder under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

12. It transpires that the prosecution in support of its case has
examined numerous witnesses; however, the key ones are the
complainant Ashaben PW-2, who proved the prior quarrel, the
assault on her husband, the chase, and the role of the accused, and
Monghabhai Lilabhai Desai PW-5, who independently established
the crucial link of the deceased running to his house in an injured
condition while being chased by accused Nos.1 and 2 with blood-
stained swords. Though no stranger eyewitness saw the actual
assault in its entirety, the combined and consistent evidence of the
complainant (eyewitness to the initial assault) and Monghabhai
(independent witness to the chase) provides sufficient
corroboration. The minor discrepancies in the depositions of panch
witnesses do not materially affect the core prosecution case when
the recoveries are supported by the Investigating Officer's evidence
and the FSL serological report.

13. It transpires from the entire material placed for consideration
that the cause behind the incident, as per the case of the
prosecution, is the ongoing enmity between the families, starting
from a trivial water splashing incident on 23.05.2011, escalating
into verbal abuse, threats, and the lodging of a police complaint by
the complainant and deceased on the morning of 24.05.2011
against all three accused. The theory of the prosecution that the
accused acted with common intention to cause death finds full
support in the proved chain of circumstances, including the prior
motive, the use of deadly weapons (swords) on vital parts, the
chase with blood-stained weapons, the medical evidence of injuries
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the
recovery of the weapons, and the presence of the deceased’s blood

Page 11 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

on the clothes of the accused. The assault was neither accidental
nor under grave and sudden provocation so as to bring the case
under any exception to Section 300 IPC; the acts were done with
the knowledge and intention that they were likely to cause death.

14. The complainant PW-2 Ashaben Sureshbhai Raval at Exh-17,
wife of the deceased Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai Raval, was examined
as a key eyewitness by the prosecution. She deposed in detail about
the prior quarrel on 23.05.2011 over water splashing, the fresh
abuse by accused No.3 on the morning of 24.05.2011 leading to the
police complaint, and the evening assault around 17:00 hours when
all three accused came to her house, abused her, and upon her
husband coming out, accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked him with
swords on vital parts including chest and neck, while accused No.3
caught her hair and beat her severely. The deceased tried to
escape and ran towards the house of Monghabhai Lilabhai Desai,
but was pursued and further assaulted. The witness identified the
accused in court, proved her complaint at Exh-18, and stated that
the deceased was taken to hospitals where he was declared dead.
Her testimony establishes a clear motive, the sequence of events,
and the explicit role of the accused. The variations pointed out by
the defence vis-à-vis the FIR are minor and natural in a sudden
traumatic incident witnessed under extreme stress, and do not
affect the credibility of the core prosecution case.

15. PW-5 Monghabhai Lilabhai Desai at Exh-28, a neighbour and
independent witness, was examined to prove a crucial link in the
chain. He stated that on 24.05.2011 around 17:15 hours, while he
was at home, the deceased Sureshbhai came running to his house
shouting “save me, save me”. He saw accused Nos.1 Chhaganbhai
and 2 Dashrathbhai chasing the deceased with swords in their

Page 12 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

hands, which were blood-stained. Becoming alarmed, he shouted at
them, whereupon the accused turned back. He observed the
deceased in a distressed and injured condition at his doorstep,
after which people gathered and the deceased was taken to
hospital. The next day, he showed the police the place where blood
had fallen and soil was collected. This evidence provides valuable
independent corroboration to the complainant’s version regarding
the chase and the blood-stained swords in the hands of accused
Nos.1 and 2. The minor discrepancies in time and details between
his police statement and deposition are natural and do not discredit
his testimony.

16. PW-6 Ankur Bachubhai Raval at Exh-29, nephew of the
deceased, was examined to corroborate the post-incident events.
He deposed that around 17:00–17:30 hours on 24.05.2011, he
reached near Jogani Mata Temple where he saw his maternal uncle
Sureshbhai lying blood-soaked with injuries on chest, chin, waist
and hands. On inquiry from the complainant Ashaben, she narrated
that accused Nos.1 and 2 had beaten the deceased with swords and
accused No.3 had beaten her severely, after which the accused fled
in a rickshaw. He accompanied the deceased to hospitals where he
was declared dead. He also confirmed the earlier quarrel over
water splashing. His evidence is consistent with the complainant’s
version regarding injuries and transport to hospital, and provides
additional corroboration to the overall prosecution narrative.

17. PW-4 Raval Kantibhai Vershibhai at Exh-27, an independent
witness and rickshaw driver residing in the locality, deposed about
the prior quarrel on 23.05.2011 which he personally witnessed and
pacified. On the day of the incident, he returned around 5:15–5:30
PM, saw the crowd near Jogani Mata Temple, and observed the
deceased lying injured and blood-soaked with injuries on chest,

Page 13 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

hands, neck area, and waist. He accompanied the deceased to
hospitals. Importantly, he stated that the deceased, while
conscious, intermittently told them that Dashrathbhai and
Chhaganbhai had assaulted him with swords. This statement of the
deceased assumes significance as a dying declaration under
Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, further corroborating the role of
accused Nos.1 and 2.

18. The combined testimony of PW-2 Ashaben, PW-5 Monghabhai
Lilabhai Desai, PW-4 Raval Kantibhai Vershibhai, and PW-6 Ankur
Bachubhai Raval was rightly relied upon by the learned Sessions
Court to establish that the deceased was assaulted with swords by
accused Nos.1 and 2, instigated by accused No.3, at or near the
complainant’s house, followed by chase and further assault. Their
accounts are mutually corroborative on the broad facts of assault,
chase, injuries, and motive. The variations pointed out by the
defence are minor and do not go to the root of the matter. The
evidence forms a consistent and reliable foundation for the
prosecution case, sufficiently proving the participation of accused
Nos.1 and 2 in the fatal assault.

19. During the investigation, the accused were medically
examined and no injuries were found on them. The absence of
defensive injuries on the accused is consistent with a sudden, one-
sided, and overpowering assault by armed persons on an unarmed
deceased. The Medical Officers opined that the injuries on the
deceased were caused by sharp cutting weapons such as swords,
consistent with the muddamal articles recovered. This medical
finding strongly corroborates the prosecution case of lethal assault
with deadly weapons on vital parts.

Page 14 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

20. The recovery of the two swords at the instance of accused
Nos.1 and 2 under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has been
duly proved through the discovery panchnama and the testimony of
the Investigating Officer. The swords were recovered from bushes
near ONGC well a place known only to the accused and provided a
direct link between them and the crime. Though some panch
witnesses gave inconsistent versions, the evidentiary value of the
recovery is sufficiently supported by the panchnama, the
Investigating Officer’s evidence, and the FSL report confirming
human blood of the deceased’s group on the weapons. The
recovery is therefore a reliable incriminating circumstance.

21. While some panch witnesses examined in relation to various
panchnamas turned partly hostile or resiled in cross-examination,
such partial hostility does not render the entire evidence unworthy
of credence. The Investigating Officer’s testimony, the
contemporaneous panchnamas, and the FSL corroboration (blood
of the deceased on the recovered swords and on the clothes of the
accused) sustain the recoveries and seizures. The learned Sessions
Court rightly sifted the grain from the chaff and placed reliance on
the reliable parts of the evidence.

22. The FSL serological report conclusively establishes the
presence of blood of the deceased’s group on the clothes of
accused Nos.1 and 2 (and also on the gown of accused No.3). This
scientific evidence is highly incriminating and, when considered
along with the recovery of blood-stained swords, the chase
witnessed by PW-5, and the absence of any explanation by the
accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., forms a
clinching link in the chain. The possibility of secondary transfer or
innocent proximity is ruled out by the cumulative circumstances,
including the motive, the eyewitness account, and the nature of

Page 15 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

injuries.

23. Taking an overall view of the matter, the prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2
through a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances: proved
motive from prior quarrel and police complaint, reliable ocular
evidence of the complainant corroborated by independent witness
Monghabhai PW-5 on chase with blood-stained swords, medical
evidence of homicidal death by sword blows on vital parts, recovery
of the weapons at the instance of the accused, FSL confirmation of
the deceased’s blood on the swords and clothes of the accused,
flight from the scene, and failure to offer any plausible explanation
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The chain points unerringly and solely to
the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence of murder
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court
is therefore fully justified and does not warrant interference.

24. The learned sessions court, after appreciating the evidence
led by the prosecution, held that the case rested on direct ocular
evidence coupled with medical and scientific corroboration, there
being eyewitness account from the complainant Ashaben PW-2 to
the assault. It placed heavy reliance on her testimony attributing
specific sword blows to accused Nos.1 and 2 on vital parts of the
deceased, instigated by accused No.3, and corroborated by
Monghabhai PW-5 seeing chase with blood-stained swords. The
learned sessions court observed that the deceased succumbed to
penetrating chest wound and other incised injuries, and concluded
that accused Nos.1 and 2 acted with common intention to cause
death. The sessions court further noted that the accused offered no
plausible explanation in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Page 16 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

regarding the blood stains on their clothes or their presence at the
scene, and held that failure to explain incriminating circumstances
though other material speaks volume.

25. The learned sessions court also accepted the motive and prior
conduct as proved through the testimony of the complainant
Ashaben at Exh-17, who deposed about the quarrel the previous
day over water splashing, verbal abuse, threats to kill, and the
complaint lodged on the morning of the incident against all three
accused for harassment.

26. However, upon a careful reappraisal of the entire evidence in
light of the submissions made by the learned advocates, this Court
finds that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the
ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence to convict accused
Nos.1 and 2 while acquitting accused No.3. The testimony of the
complainant Ashaben PW-2, though an interested witness, stands
substantially corroborated by the independent evidence of
Monghabhai Lilabhai Desai PW-5 on the crucial aspect of the chase
with blood-stained swords, the post-mortem report confirming
homicidal death due to sword-inflicted wounds on vital parts, the
recovery of the weapons at the instance of the accused, and the
FSL report establishing the presence of the deceased's blood on
the clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2. The minor contradictions
pointed out by the defence, such as variations in the precise
sequence or attribution of blows, do not go to the root of the matter
and are natural in a traumatic incident witnessed under stress.
Such discrepancies do not detract from the core prosecution
narrative that accused Nos.1 and 2, armed with swords and acting
in concert, inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased with the
knowledge that such acts were likely to cause death.

Page 17 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

27. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goverdhan and
Another v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 47, minor
inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses do
not, by themselves, warrant rejection of their evidence as a whole
under Section 302 IPC, provided the testimony as a whole carries a
ring of truth and inspires confidence, as the court must sift the
grain from the chaff and separate truth from any exaggeration or
embellishment common in such witnesses.

28. As regards the motive, the evidence clearly establishes a
simmering enmity between the families, escalating from the trivial
water splashing incident on 23.05.2011 to verbal abuses and the
lodging of a police complaint by the complainant and deceased on
the morning of 24.05.2011. This prior conduct, deposed
consistently by Ashaben PW-2 and supported by police records,
provides a plausible trigger for the assault, negating any
suggestion of false implication. The defence's contention of enmity
cutting both ways is untenable, as it does not explain away the
incriminating circumstances pointing squarely to the guilt of
accused Nos.1 and 2.

29. The medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report at
Exh-43 and the testimony of Dr. Hetal Chinubhai Patel PW-9, leaves
no room for doubt that the death was homicidal, caused by multiple
penetrating and incised wounds on vital parts, including the chest
wound that pierced the lung cavity, leading to massive
haemorrhage and shock. The opinion that these injuries were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, coupled
with the identification of the muddamal swords as capable of
inflicting such wounds, fortifies the prosecution case. The absence
of defensive injuries on the accused does not aid the defence, as it

Page 18 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

is consistent with a sudden and overpowering assault on an
unarmed deceased.

30. The recovery of the swords under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, though challenged on account of inconsistencies in
the panch witnesses testimonies, is sufficiently corroborated by the
panchnama and the FSL report confirming human blood of the
deceased's group on the weapons. Even if some panch witnesses
turned partly hostile, the overall evidentiary value of the recovery
remains intact, as hostility does not ipso facto render the entire
evidence unworthy of credence. The learned Sessions Judge has
correctly sifted the grain from the chaff in accepting this link in the
chain.

31. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to Raja Khan v.
State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 167 as under:

“20. The essential ingredients of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act are threefold:

i. The information given by the accused must lead to the
discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such
information.
ii. Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly
connected with the said recovery is admissible against the
accused.
iii. The discovery of the facts must relate to the commission
of such offence.

21. The question as to whether evidence relating to recovery is
sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused was considered by this
Court in Bodhraj Alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu &
Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, wherein it has been held as
under:-

“18… Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in
short “Evidence Act”) is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to

Page 19 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police
custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is
admissible in evidence against the accused. This position was
succinctly dealt with by this Court in Delhi Admn v.
Balakrishan [(1972) 4 SCC 659] and Mohd. Inayatullah v.
State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 828]. The words ‘so
much of such information’ as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered, are very important and the whole force of
the section concentrates on them. Clearly the extent of the
information admissible must depend on the exact nature of
the fact discovered to which such information is required to
relate. The ban as imposed by the preceding sections was
presumably inspired by the fear of the Legislature that a
person under police influence might be induced to confess by
the exercise of undue pressure. If all that is required to lift
the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information
relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems
reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the
police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice
the ban will lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e.
Section 27 was to provide for the admission of evidence
which but for the existence of the section could not in
consequence of the preceding sections, be admitted in
evidence. It would appear that under Section 27 as it
stands in order to render the evidence leading to
discovery of any fact admissible, the information must
come from any accused in custody of the police. The
requirement of police custody is productive of extremely
anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of much
valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is
subsequently taken into custody and becomes an accused,
after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily
goes to him or to the police station and states the
circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the
dead body, weapon or any other material fact, in consequence
of the information thus received from him. This information
which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under
Section 27 if the information did not come from a person in
the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not
in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is
admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the
information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible
being the information, the same has to be proved and not the
opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words,
the exact information given by the accused while in
custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be
proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the
accused and prosecution that information given should be
recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact
information must be adduced through evidence. The basic
idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the
doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine
is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a

Page 20 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

search made on the strength of any information obtained
from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information
might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it
results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable
information. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is
not discovery of fact envisaged in the section. Decision of
Privy Council in Palukuri Kotayya v. Emperor [AIR (1947) PC
67], is the most quoted authority of supporting the
interpretation that the ‘fact discovered’ envisaged in the
section embraces the place from which the object was
produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the
information given must relate distinctly to that effect. [See
State of Maharashtra v. Dam Gopinath Shinde and Ors,
(2000) 6 SCC 269]. No doubt, the information permitted to be
admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the
information which ‘distinctly relates to the fact thereby
discovered’. But the information to get admissibility need not
be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible.
The extent of information admitted should be consistent with
understandability. Mere statement that the accused led
the police and the witnesses to the place where he had
concealed the articles is not indicative of the
information given.”

32. The FSL serological report, establishing the presence of the
deceased's blood group on the clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2,
forms a clinching piece of evidence. In their statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused offered no explanation for this
incriminating circumstance, which, under the law, can be used
against them to draw an adverse inference. This, combined with
their flight from the scene and threats issued, as deposed by
witnesses, completes the chain of circumstances unerringly
pointing to their guilt under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.

33. Turning to the role of accused No.3 Gangaben, the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted her, finding insufficient
evidence to establish her sharing of common intention to commit
murder. While her presence at the scene and assault on the
complainant are proved, leading to charges under Sections 323,

Page 21 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

504, and 506(2) IPC, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that she
instigated the fatal assault or had knowledge that death was likely
to ensue. The blood stains on her gown, as per the FSL report,
could be attributed to her proximity during the scuffle rather than
active participation in the lethal blows. The ocular evidence does
not attribute any sword blows to her, and her actions appear
limited to the quarrel with the complainant. The State's appeal
against her acquittal under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
is, therefore, devoid of merit, as the findings of the learned
Sessions court are neither perverse nor based on misappreciation
of evidence.

34. At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of
Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471] encapsulated the legal
position covering the field after considering various earlier
judgments and held as below: -

“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 acquittal in the following words:
(Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007)
4 SCC 415]

“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

Page 22 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

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.”

35. In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
[(2023) 9 SCC 581] the Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized the
principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC
as follows: -
“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.”

36. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied

Page 23 of 24
R/CR.A/1515/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026

that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos.1
Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai Parmar and 2 Dashrathbhai Ambalal Raval
beyond reasonable doubt for the offence of murder under Section
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of
life imprisonment with fine, as imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge, is commensurate with the gravity of the offence and does
not warrant interference.

36.1 Conversely, the acquittal of accused No.3 Gangaben is well-
founded and does not suffer from any infirmity calling for reversal.

37. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2013
preferred by original accused Nos.1 and 2 against their conviction
and sentence is hereby dismissed.

37.1 Criminal Appeal No. 1315 of 2013 preferred by the State
against the acquittal of original accused No.3 is also dismissed.

37.2 The judgment and order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the
learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions
Case No. 100 of 2011 is confirmed.

37.3 Bail bonds, if any, of the appellants-accused Nos.1 and 2
stand cancelled, and they shall surrender within 6 weeks from the
date of this order to undergo the remaining sentence.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/02/2026 17:38:46

Page 24 of 24