THE STATE OF GUJARATversusKALUBHAI SHAMALABHAI KAMLIYA

     R/CR.A/1318/2005                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1318 of 2005


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA                                        Sd/-

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI                                       Sd/-
==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting                      Yes          No
                                                                       ✔
==========================================================
                          THE STATE OF GUJARAT
                                  Versus
                    KALUBHAI SHAMALABHAI KAMLIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YATIN SONI(868) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                                 Date : 21/01/2026

                     ORAL JUDGMENT
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)


1.     This acquittal appeal preferred by the State is
       directed against the judgment dated 03.09.2004
       passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar
       in Special Atrocity Case No.8 of 2004 by which the
       respondents-accused             have        been        acquitted       under
       Sections 302, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149 read with
       Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of The
       Scheduled            Castes    and          the    Scheduled           Tribes

                                     Page 1 of 7
     R/CR.A/1318/2005                       JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




       (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of
       Bombay Police Act.

2.     Case of the prosecution, in short is that, an FIR
       against 14 accused for the murder of one Premjibhai
       Alabhai came to be registered with Bagdana Police
       Station, Mahuva at Bhavnagar. The motive for the
       murder was animosity between two groups. According
       to prosecution case, on 28.06.2001 at about 9:00
       p.m., the accused formed an unlawful assembly and
       the object of the assembly was to kill the deceased
       Premjibhai and being a member of the unlawful
       assembly, the accused assembled at the bus stand of
       Village: Kasana and then, near the house of the
       deceased, armed with deadly weapons like iron rod,
       sticks and swords and by illegally trespassing in the
       house of the deceased, he was brutally assaulted and
       by locking the door from outside, the deceased was
       set on fire by pouring edible oil and diesel. The
       complaint came to be filed by the wife of the
       deceased PW.1 – Heeraben. The deceased belongs to
       Schedule Caste. The investigation handed over to
       PW.8 – Dy.S.P., Mahuva and after due investigation,
       the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused.
       It is relevant to note that, in the first phase, 9 accused
       were chargesheeted and they have been acquitted by
       the trial court for want of sufÏcient evidence and later


                              Page 2 of 7
     R/CR.A/1318/2005                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




       on, the respondents-accused were put on trial and
       they also been acquitted because of no evidence.

3.     In the course of trial, prosecution examined in all 10
       witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The eye
       witnesses namely PW.1 – Heeraben Premjibhai, PW.2
       – Tinaben Premjibhai, PW.3 – Natubhai Zaverbhai,
       PW.5 – Shivabhai Bachubhai have not supported to
       the case of prosecution and in the cross-examination
       also, they did not extend support to the prosecution
       on the aspect of incident.

4.     Trial court after hearing the parties and upon
       appreciation          of   the       evidence,         acquitted          the
       respondents-accused from all charges observing that
       the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case
       beyond           reasonable    doubt        by   adducing          cogent,
       acceptable and reliable evidence.

5.     In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the State
       being aggrieved with the judgment of the acquittal,
       has come up with this appeal.

6.     We have heard Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned APP
       appearing for the appellant-State and Mr. Yatin Soni,
       learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the
       respondents-accused.

7.     Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned APP appearing for and on

                                     Page 3 of 7
     R/CR.A/1318/2005                                JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




       behalf of the appellant-State while assailing the
       impugned           judgment,     has       submitted       that,       the
       judgment of acquittal suffers from legal infirmities,
       perversity and fundamental error in appreciation of
       evidence. That, the evidence of police ofÏcials would
       be      material     and    considering       the     circumstantial
       evidence, the involvement of the accused being
       proved and established.

8.     In such circumstances as referred above, Mr. Parikh,
       learned APP prayed that, there being merits in this
       appeal as the findings of acquittal are contrary to the
       evidence on record and same may be allowed and the
       accused be convicted and sentenced for the offences
       for which they were tried.

9.     On       the     other   hand,   Mr.      Soni,   learned       counsel
       appearing for the accused has supported the findings
       recorded by the Trial Court and contended that there
       is no sufÏcient evidence adduced by the prosecution
       to establish the charge of murder as the close
       relatives and family members have been declared
       hostile and they have not supported the factual
       aspect of the incident even in their cross-examination.
       It is further argued that, out of 14, the trial of 9
       accused would also result into acquittal and therefore,
       this is a case of no evidence. In such circumstances, it
       is submitted that,           the     court below         has      rightly

                                   Page 4 of 7
  R/CR.A/1318/2005                      JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




    appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence
    and does not committed any error either on law or
    facts while recording the acquittal. Thus, therefore,
    when view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view
    and the prosecution miserably failed to point out the
    compelling reason warranting inference in the order
    and judgment of the acquittal, the appeal lacks merits
    and may be dismissed.

10. We have considered the submissions made at the bar
    and perused the record and proceedings of the case.

11. Having regard to the evidence on record, and findings
    recorded by the Trial Court, the issue required to be
    considered whether the judgment of acquittal suffers
    from legal infirmity, perversity or fundamental error in
    appreciation of the evidence, that would warrant
    interference by this Appellate Court?

12. Before venturing into the merits of the case, we would
    like to refer the scope of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
    while deciding an appeal against the judgment and
    order of acquittal. The Supreme Court in its various
    pronouncements has persistently emphasized that
    there are limitations while interfering with an order
    against acquittal. In exceptional cases, where there
    are compelling circumstances and the judgment
    under appeal is found to be perverse, the Appellate


                          Page 5 of 7
  R/CR.A/1318/2005                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




    Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The
    Appellate Court should bear in mind the presumption
    of innocence of the accused and further that the
    acquittal by the Lower Court bolsters the presumption
    of his innocence. Interference in routine manner,
    where the other view is possible should be avoided,
    unless there are good reasons for interference.

13. In the facts of the present case, the material eye
    witnesses who are wife, daughter and residents of
    village,         have   not    supported         to     the      case         of
    prosecution. The police ofÏcials have no personal
    knowledge about the incident and their evidence
    cannot be taken into consideration to come to a
    conclusion that the accused-respondents had been
    involved in the incident. In our opinion, this is a case
    of no evidence. In other words, there is no iota of
    evidence to prove that, the present respondents-
    accused were members of unlawful assembly and
    with       the    common      object        to   kill   the     deceased
    Premjibhai, they joined the unlawful assembly and
    actively participated in commission of crime.

14. For the reasons recorded, the prosecution has not
    adduced sufÏcient evidence to prove the charge
    against the accused. On careful examination of the
    findings of the trial court, we do not find any
    compelling reasons warranting interference in the

                                  Page 6 of 7
        R/CR.A/1318/2005                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




           judgment of the acquittal as the findings of acquittal
           based on the evidence on record and the view of the
           Trial Court is possible view which do not warrant any
           interference.

  15. Resultantly, in absence of any compelling reasons to
           interference with the judgment of acquittal, this
           acquittal          appeal          preferred            by       the      State         stands
           dismissed. The bail bonds, if any stands cancelled.
           Surety, if any, given, stands discharged. R & P to be
           sent to the Trial Court concerned.
                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                    (ILESH J. VORA,J)




                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                                 (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
  TAUSIF SAIYED

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: TAUSIFAHMED SAIYED(HC01401), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/01/2026 17:24:53




                                                   Page 7 of 7