Holding

The High Court held that the prosecution established the elements of murder under Section 300 IPC, affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 114.

Summary

The case involved the murder of Bharat by four accused family members. The trial court convicted Ramesh Salat and Manoj Salat under Sections 302 and 114 IPC, while acquitting Amir and Gopi of murder but convicting Amir under Section 323 for injuring witnesses. The State appealed the acquittals and the accused appealed their convictions, raising issues of insufficient evidence, witness reliability, delay in filing the FIR, and whether the offence amounted to murder or culpable homicide. The High Court examined the eye‑witness testimonies, medical reports, and the circumstances of the dispute over Rs 10,000, finding the witnesses credible and the injuries sufficient to infer intent to cause death. Applying the law on murder under Section 300 IPC, the Court held that the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, it dismissed the appeals against conviction and upheld the trial court’s judgment, also dismissing the State’s appeal against the acquittals.

Issues considered

The prosecution proved the charge of murder under Section 300/302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR undermines the reliability of the prosecution’s case.
Whether the eye‑witnesses, being relatives of the deceased, can be trusted.
Whether the injuries constitute murder or merely culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The validity of the conviction of Ramesh Salat and Manoj Salat.
The correctness of the acquittal of Amir and Gopi on the murder charge.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304, s. 323

Subjects

murderconvictionappealIPCSection 302Section 300Section 304Section 323Section 114eye‑witness testimonymedical evidencedelay in FIRchild witnessintentculpable homicide

Judgment

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1507 of 2018
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1553 of 2017
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 228 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
RAMESH DHANJIBHAI SALAT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Appellants
MR JK SHAH APP for the Respondent
==========================================================

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

Date : 27/01/2026

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

1. Since the facts of the case and issue involved in the captioned
appeals, are identical and arise out of the same judgment, the
appeals are taken up together and are being disposed by this
common judgment.

Page 1 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

2. Vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2017 passed in Sessions
Case No. 68 of 2014, whereby the learned Additional Sessions
Court at Valsad, convicted and sentenced the accused A1 Ramesh
Salat and A2 Manoj Ramesh for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
whereas, the accused Amir Ramesh A3 and accused Gopi Ramesh
A4, have been acquitted from the charges of murder, however, the
accused A3 Amir has been convicted under Section 323 for
causing injuries to the witnesses and sentenced them in the
manner stated hereinafter :

Conviction under Punishment Fine In default of
Section fine
302 of IPC RI for Life Rs3,000/- SI for 6 months

The sentences of the accused A1 and A2 were ordered to run
concurrently.

3. The accused appellant – Ramesh Salat A1 and accused Manoj
Salat A2, have also questioned the legality and correctness of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence by preferring
Criminal Appeal No. 1507 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No.228
of 2021 respectively.

4. The State being aggrieved with the acquittal of accused Nos. 3
and 4 from the charges of murder punishable under Section 302
has preferred an acquittal appeal being No. 1553 of 2017.

Page 2 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

5. Factual background :

On 28.01.2014, the FIR against the 4 persons for the
offenses punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506(2) read
with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered
being CR No.I- 41 of 2014 with Vapi Town Police Station, city :
Vapi, District : Valsad. The complainant and accused and
witnesses belonged to one family and living in the Kunta area of
Vapi. The son of complainant Bharat was killed by the accused
namely Ramesh Salat, Manoj Salat, Amir Salat and Gopi Salat,
inflicting bodily injuries with the weapons like dagger, iron pipe,
knife, iron rod. The incident of murder being occurred on
27.01.2014 at about 10-30 to 10-45 pm nearby the house of
complainant party. The motive behind the murder was due
amount of Rs.10,000/- allegedly to be paid by the complainant
PW-4 to the accused A1 Ramesh, who happened to be his real
brother. Prior to the incident, way back in the year 2001, the
accused Ramesh filed a criminal complaint against the
complainant and others for hurling abusive and causing
voluntary injuries to them. The accused Ramesh, as a part of
settlement was demanding Rs.10,000/- from his brother
complainant towards the expenses of litigation but despite of
repeated demand, the complainant PW-4 did not have heed the
request and did not have made the payment. It is in these
background facts, on 27.01.2014, the accused came at the house
of the complainant and made a demand of Rs.10000/- and on that
issue heated exchange of words being taken place between PW-4

Page 3 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

and accused Ramesh Salat and thereafter, the accused No.1
Ramesh Salat took out weapon dagger and inflicted a repeated
blows on the back side of the head of deceased Bharat, who was
standing near his house. The accused Manoj A2, inflicted iron
rod blow on the head of deceased Bharat and also on the face of
the deceased, whereas, accused Amir A3 and accused No. 4
Gopi assaulted the deceased with the weapon iron rod and knife.
The wife of the deceased PW-5 Bhavna Rathod and minor
daughter aged about 6 yrs – PW-6 Mohini, when intervened for
rescual purpose, the accused A3 Amir caused injuries with pipe
on both the witnesses.

After the incident, the accused ran away from the place.
The deceased Bharat and injured witnesses immediately taken to
the Daman Government Hospital and the deceased was brought
declared dead by the doctor. The Daman Police had advised to
lodge an FIR with the Vapi Town Police Station at Vapi,
because, the incident has occurred in the jurisdictional area of
Vapi Town Police Station, as a result, on early morning at about
3-00 AM, PW-4 lodged an FIR before PW-11 – PI, Vapi Town
Police Station.

After registration of the offence against the accused, the
investigation of the case was handed over to the PW-11. The IO
during the investigation, prepared the panchanama of scene of
occurrence, arrested the accused on the same day i.e. 28.01.2014,
sent the dead body for the post mortem, seized the weapons

Page 4 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

allegedly used in the crime, obtained the necessary injury
certificates of the witnesses, recorded the statement of the
witnesses, sent the seized articles to the FSL for forensic science
analysis and after completion of the investigation, the
chargesheet against the accused for the aforesaid offenses filed
before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

As the case was exclusively triable by the court of
Sessions and it was committed to the court of Sessions at Valsad.
The Sessions Court, Valsad framed the charges against the
accused, which they did not admit and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in order to prove the charge, adduced the
following oral and documentary evidence in support of its case.

Oral evidence

PW 1 – Exh.9 Raju Amrat, panch witness

PW 2 – Exh.17 Shankar Channabhai, panch witness
PW 3 – Exh.19 Prema Narayanbhai, panch witness

PW 4 – Exh.20 Varsingh Dhanji, Complainant
PW 5 – Exh.21 Bhavnaben Bharatbhai

PW 6 – Exh.22 Mohiniben Bharatbhai
PW 7 – Exh.24 Dr. Nirankarnath Nevilal

PW 8 – Exh.29 Dr. Prashant Sagar
PW 9 – Exh.35 Kalidas Makan Patel

PW 10 – Exh.38 Bhupatbhai Natubhai, PSO
PW 11 – Exh.41 Govind Nanji Parmar, IO

Page 5 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

PW 12 – Exh.45 Zinga Ramdas, PSO

PW 13 – Exh.49 Ajit Manubhai Parmar

Documentary evidence

Exh.10 Panchnama of place of offence
Exh.11-14 Signed copy of panchnama

Exh.18 Panchnama of state of body of accused
Exh.25 PM Note

Exh.26 Cause of death certificate
Exh.27 PM Yadi

Exh.28 Inq. Form 2B
Exh.30 Medical certificate of Bhavnaben

Exh.31 Medical certificate of Mohiniben
Exh.32 Yadi for medical examination

Exh.33 Case papers of Bhavnaben
Exh.34 Case papers of Mohiniben

Exh.36 Yadi for map of place of offence
Exh.37 Map of place of offence

Exh.39 Station diary
Exh.40 Police yadi

Exh.42 Complaint
Exh.43 Inquest panchnama

Exh.46 Panchnama of clothes recovered from the deceased
Exh.47 Signed copy of panchnama

Exh.48 Station diary

Page 6 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

Exh.50 FSL report

Exh.51 Biological report
Exh.52 Serological report

7. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, were recorded to which, they stated
that they have been falsely implicated in the offence and they are
innocent and have not committed any offence.

8. Though the opportunity was extended, no oral evidence being
adduced by the appellants accused.

9. Trial Court’s finding:

After hearing the parties and upon appreciation of the
evidence, the accused A1 and A2 i.e. Ramesh Salat and his son
Manoj Salat held guilty for the offence of murder and the rest of
the accused being acquitted from the charge of murder.
However, the trial Court convicted the accused A-3 Amir Salat
for causing voluntary injury to the witnesses under Section 323
of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court while recording the
conviction has mainly relied upon the testimonies of eye-
witnesses PW-4 Varsing Dhanji, PW-5 Bhavnaben Rathod, and
minor daughter Mohini PW-6.

10. Evidence adduced by the prosecution :
Medical Evidence :

Page 7 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

10.1 PW-7 : Dr. Nirankarnath Nevilal Singh : This witness being
Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Marvad at Daman, had
conducted the Postmortum on the body of the deceased Bharat
Narsingbhai. The witness noticed the following external and
internal injuries :
External Injuries :
(i) incise wound of 8x1.5x1.5 cm. in middle of Lt
parietal region
(ii) incise wound of 6x1.5x1.5 cm. in middle of Rt
parietal region
(iii) incise wound of 4x0.5x0.5 cm. Lt side upper lip
(iv) incise wound of 4x0.5x1 cm. Lt side below
mandible

Internal Injuries:
(i) incise wound on right and left parietal region;
(ii) fracture on right and left parietal bone;
(iii) Contusion and laceration of brain, cerebral hemorrhage
present,
(iv) Incise wound over the left side below mandible
(4X0.5X1 cm)

So far as cause of death is concerned, the witness had opined
that the cause of death was hammageric shock due to head injury.

The witness Dr. PW-7 has proved and produced the PM report
and certificate of cause of death at Exh. 25 and 26. It is further

Page 8 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

opined by the doctor that the external injuries and internal injuries
are correlated to each other. According to opinion of the doctor,
the injuries mentioned on column no. 17, 18 and 25 of PM report
were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is
further opined that, the injuries mentioned in column no. 17 could
be possible with the weapon dagger and knife and injuries
mentioned in column no. 18 and 25 could be possible with the
weapon article iron pipe and article iron rod.

In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that, during
the postmortem he did not notice any puncture wound on the body
of the deceased. On the aspect of possibility of the injuries of
parietal bone with the weapon knife, the witness has opined that it
can and it not be possible.

10.2 PW-8 : Dr. Prashant Rameshbhai Sagar : This witness had
examined the injured witnesses PW-5 Bhavna Rathod and PW-6
Mohini Rathod. The witnesses were examined on 28.01.2014 in
the morning at 7-45 am at the Government Hospital, Marvad,
Daman. The witness No. 5 Bhavna Rathod, according to opinion
of the doctor, she received injury in the nature of contusion 3x1
cm over the forehead and this injury could be possible by hard and
blunt object. The witness no.6 Mohini Bharatbhai, as per the
examination of the doctor, she received an abrasion (2x1 cm) over
right forearm below elbow and same could be possible by hard
and blunt object. Both the injuries were simple in nature and the
certificates thereof are produced at Exh. 30 and 31 along with

Page 9 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

OPD case papers.

Testimony of the Eye-witnesses:

11. PW-4 Varsingbhai Dhanjibhai Halpati : This witness is the
father of the deceased Bharatbhai and admittedly, the deceased
was living adjacent to the house of the witness – father. At
relevant time, the witness and family of the deceased were present
in the house. The accused Ramesh A1 is the real brother of the
witness and uncle of deceased Bharatbhai. The rest of the accused
are sons of the A1 Rameshbhai. Prior to the incident, the accused
Ramesh filed a criminal complaint against the witness and others
and on that ground, there was an animosity between the parties
and the accused Ramesh was asking the witness to pay
Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost and reasons best known to the
witness, he was not ready to pay the amount. It is in these
background facts, the witness in his chief examination, has stated
that, the accused came to his house and at that time, his son Bharat
was standing near the door of his house and was fatally assaulted
by the accused. The witness in detail, has stated that the accused
Ramesh armed with dagger, gave a blow on the back side of head
and face of the deceased, whereas, accused Manoj inflicted blow
with iron rod on the head, whereas, accused Amir gave a blow on
the chest of the deceased and the accused Gopi caused injuries
with the knife on the lips and face of the deceased. The witness
has further stated that, the wife of the deceased Bhavna PW-5 and
minor daughter Mohini – PW-6, when intervened for rescue, they

Page 10 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

also have been assaulted by the accused using iron pipe. The
witness has further stated that, the deceased was taken to Daman
Government Hospital in the ambulance and the doctor declaring
him ‘dead’ on arrival. The witness has stated that on the advice of
Daman Police, the FIR came to be lodged with the Vapi Town
Police Station. The witness has identified the accused in the court
and seized weapons article nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11.

In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that, the
accused Ramesh is his real brother and rest of the accused are his
nephew. The witness has denied that before 11 years, he assaulted
the accused Ramesh and his family members. It is also admitted
by the witness that, the criminal case for causing injury is pending
with the Vapi Court and the accused Ramesh was asking
Rs.10,000/- from him towards expenses and till date, the amount
has not been paid by him. It is denied by the witness that, no such
incident as stated in the chief-examination, being occurred and
due to the pendency of criminal case, the accused have been
falsely implicated by him. It is also denied by the witness that his
son is died due to motor accident. It is also admitted by the
witness that before the doctor, he did not have disclosed the
names of the assailants. It is denied by the witness that, in order to
pressurize the accused in the criminal case by creating false story,
they have been falsely implicated. On the aspect of delay in
lodging the FIR, the witness has stated that, the FIR came to be
lodged with Vapi Police Station in the early morning at about 4-00

Page 11 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

to 4-30 am.

12. PW-5 Bhavnaben Bharatbhai Rathod : This witness is the wife
of the deceased Bharatbhai and at the time of incident, she was
very much present in the house along with two daughters namely
Neha and Mohini (PW-6). The witness in her chief-examination
has stated that, on the day of incident, the accused came to their
house and by hurling abusive, they demanded Rs.10,000/- from
her father-in-law, who is residing in the adjacent to her house and
at that time, Ramesh by using dagger gave a blow on the head of
deceased and the accused Amir and Gopi along with Manoj, had
also assaulted her husband with the weapon pipe, iron rod and
knife. She has stated that her husband was assaulted on his head
and face and while trying to rescue him, the accused assaulted her
as well as a minor daughter Mohini. The witness has stated that,
her husband was taken into ambulance at Government Hospital,
Marvad. The witness has identified the accused in the court and
also identified the weapons allegedly used by the accused in the
crime.

In the cross-examination, the defense has tried to prove that at
relevant time, there was no sufficient light at the place of
occurrence but the witness has denied to the said suggestion and
stated that there was sufficient light. On the aspect of due amount
of Rs.10,000/-, the witness has stated that since last 13 years, the
accused had been demanding the said amount from his father-in-
law. It is denied by the witness that, before incident, there was

Page 12 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

heated exchange of words between her husband and accused and
deceased - her husband hurled abusive. The witness has admitted
that, after heated exchange of words, the incident of assault has
been taken place. It is denied by the witness that at relevant time,
she was not present in the house and on the aspect of assault by
the accused, she is telling lie.

13. PW-6 Mohini Bharatbhai: This witness is a minor daughter of
the deceased and at the age of 9, she had witnessed the incident.
Before recording the evidence, the court was satisfied about the
maturity to understand the question and answer, as a result, oath
was administered to her and thereafter, trial Court had proceeded
to record evidence. This witness has stated in her chief-
examination that the accused belonged to our family. At the time
of incident, the accused Ramesh Uncle, Manoj Uncle and Amir
Uncle, assaulted her father with the dagger, pipe and knife. The
witness has identified the accused and the seized weapons in the
court. She has also stated that, at the relevant time, her
grandfather, mother, grandmother and aunt were present. In the
cross-examination, the witness has denied that, on earlier
occasion, she had been in court to learn the proceedings of the
court and how to give deposition. She has also denied that, she
learnt from the discussions made amongst the family members on
the aspect of how to give deposition. She has also denied that, she
was tutored by her mother. She has denied the suggestion that,
before the incident could take place, there was heated arguments
which lasted for 10 minutes between the accused and her

Page 13 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

grandfather. She has also denied that, her grandfather and others
were hurling abusive on the accused. She denied to the suggestion
that, due to sickness of her grandfather, he was sleeping on the
cot. She has denied that, no injury being sustained by her as well
as her mother in the said incident. She has admitted the facts that,
the accused Ramesh caused injury first in point of time to her
father and lastly, Gopi uncle assaulted him. She has stated that,
she has witnessed the entire incident. She has denied to the
suggestion that, due to drinking habit of her father, he was used to
beat her mother. She has denied that, on the day of incident, at
about 10:00 p.m. she went into sleep.

14. PW.11 – Govindji Nanji Parmar : This witness being a Police
Inspector of Vapi Town Police Station, had recorded the
complaint of the eye witness Varsingbhai Salat, which he
produced at Exh.42. The I.O. also referred the inquest and P.M.
proceedings held at Marvad Hospital. The I.O. in his chief-
examination has stated that, after the registration of the offence,
he was entrusted with the investigation of the case and during the
investigation, he had recorded the statements of the witnesses,
arrested the accused, seized the weapons used in the crime, sent
the seized articles for FSL. In the cross-examination, he has
admitted that, the thumb impression of the complainant has not
been identified by anyone. The witness has voluntarily stated that,
the complainant put the thumb impression before him. The I.O.
has admitted that, there is no any distinct identification of the
weapon being clarified by the witnesses. The I.O. has admitted

Page 14 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

that, the temple is situated near the place of occurrence and he has
not recorded the statement of priest or any other responsible
person of the temple. In the cross-examination, the I.O. has stated
that, during the investigation, the witnesses have not stated that,
while lifting the deceased Bharat, their clothes got blood stains.
The I.O. has admitted that, during the investigation, it reveals that,
the criminal case filed by the accused Ramesh against the
complainant is pending and he does not know about the money to
be paid by the complainant to the accused. The I.O. has admitted
that, most of the witnesses are related to the complainant party.

15. PW.12 – Ajitkumar Manubhai Parmar: This witness being
a Police Inspector of Vapi Police Station, except filing of the
chargesheet, he did not have further investigate the case.

Submissions:

16. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Pratik Barot appearing for and
on behalf of the accused and Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

17. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned counsel while assailing the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has urged the
following submissions:

(a) In the facts of the present case, the prosecution failed to prove the
charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Page 15 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

(b) The trial court grossly erred while convicting the accused, without
appreciating the evidence in the right prospective.
(c) There are apparent contradictions and omissions in the statements
of the witnesses and as such, evidence, brought on record by the
side of the prosecution cannot be relied upon.
(d) Only related and interested witnesses have been examined,
although the independent witnesses were available, but,
purposely, they were not examined by the prosecution and their
evidence is neither reliable, nor credible which creates a doubt in
the prosecution story.
(e) Medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular evidence.
(f) The presence of the eye witnesses is doubtful and due to
animosity, the witnesses are telling lie against the accused.
(g) Recovery of the weapons has not been properly proved.
(h) There was delay in lodging the FIR as the incident according to
prosecution case, being occasioned between 10:30 to 10:45 p.m.,
and FIR came to be filed in the early morning at about 4:00 a.m.
and without any satisfactory explanation, the possibility of
embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on
account of such delay cannot be ruled out, as a result, the
prosecution story cannot be accepted as trustworthy.
(i) So far as accused no. 2 Manoj – appellant accused is concerned, it
was submitted that, according to prosecution case, Manoj had
caused head injury with iron rod. On the same line, the accused
Amir Salat caused injuries with iron pipe on the chest of the
deceased. There are major contradictions and improvement on the

Page 16 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

aspect of injury found in the testimony of eye–witnesses namely
PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 and as per their evidence, the acquitted
accused Amir had caused injuries on the body of the deceased
with the blunt object. In such circumstances, when on the same
set of evidence, the accused no.3 Amir has been acquitted for the
charge of murder, the conviction of the appellant accused – Manoj
is not sustainable in law.
(j) In alternative, it was prayed that the complainant party despite of
repeated demand made by the accused for payment of Rs.10,000/-
towards the litigation cost, the said amount was not being
considered and on that count, there was long standing dispute
between the parties, as a result, in hit of passion, without any
intention to kill the deceased, the injury being caused and
therefore, if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, then also the
case does not fall under the definition of ‘murder’ but it would fall
under Section 304 Part I or II, which punishes the person for
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

18. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel Mr.
Barot has prayed that there being merits in these appeals and same
may be allowed and appellants accused be acquitted of all
charges. So far as alternative prayer is concerned, it was submitted
that, the appellants have undergone more than 11 years of their
jail imprisonment and if the court comes to the conclusion that,
the accused appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Section 304 Indian Penal Code then

Page 17 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

sentenced may be altered and/or modified to the extent already
undergone.

19. On the other hand, opposing the appeals, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah, has made the following
submissions :

(i) The prosecution has been able to prove the charge of murder and
causing injury to the witnesses by sufficient, cogent and
acceptable evidence against the appellants accused.
(ii) The testimony of eye-witnesses PW-4 complainant, PW-5 –
Bhavnaben and PW-6 child witness – Mohini, are trustworthy
and worthy of credence on the aspect of complicity of accused in
the alleged crime and their version are consistent with respect to
the injury caused by the accused with the respective weapons
and as such there is no material contradiction found in their
evidence and therefore, the credibility on the aspect of their
presence cannot be doubted as in the night hours, everyone was
present in the house and their presence at the spot was natural.
The wife of the deceased and daughter sustained injuries in the
said incident, as they intervened to rescue the deceased and their
injuries being proved by examined treating Doctor PW-8 and
therefore, their presence at the spot cannot be denied. There was
no motive for them to falsely involved the accused in the serious
charge of murder and let go the real assailants. At relevant time,
except the witnesses, no one had witnessed the incident and
therefore, though the witnesses are related to each other but their

Page 18 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are
interested or close relative of the deceased.
(iii) There is no variance between medical evidence and ocular
evidence, as the PM doctor has rightly opined that the internal
injuries mentioned in column no. 18 and 25 could be possible
with the blunt object and therefore, as per the settled law, the
oral evidence given as to get primacy over the medical evidence,
as claimed to have been inflicted.
(iv) The plea of parity with the co-accused Amir Salat (A3), cannot
be extended to the accused Manoj, as the accused Amir did not
have caused any head injury on the body of the deceased.
(v) No case is made out to bring the case within the ambit of any
exception to Section 300 as the fatal injuries with intention to
kill were being inflicted by dangerous weapons.
(vi) There was no delay and the delay of 3 to 4 hours being
sufficiently explained by the complainant and therefore, on this
count, the reliable and trustworthy evidence involving the
appellants accused herein cannot be discarded.

20. In such circumstances, the State has prayed that there being no
merits in the present appeals and same may be dismissed.

21. We have heard at length learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and perused the case records.

22. Undoubtedly, it is a case of homicide, as there is no dispute that
the death of the deceased was not homicidal and natural. The

Page 19 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

question is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the
case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt?

23. The prosecution case rested on the three eye-witnesses namely
PW-4 Varsing Dhanjibhai Halpati, PW-5 Bhavnaben Bharatbhai,
and PW-6 – Mohini Bharatbhai. The deceased Bharat and his
family was living adjacent to the house of PW-4 Varsing Halpati
and the houses of the accused were also situated in the same
location of city Vapi. The incident in question occurred on
27.01.2014 at about 10-30 to 10-45 pm. It is in these background
facts and upon close scrutiny of the aforesaid three witnesses, we
are of the considered opinion that, their presence at the spot
cannot be doubted as in the night area, their presence seems to be
natural at their home. The PW-4 is the father of the deceased and
at relevant time he was in rest, sleeping on the coat. It is not in
dispute that, before 12 years of the incident, the accused Ramesh,
who is brother of PW-4 filed a criminal complaint against the PW-
4 and others for causing injury. It is the case of the prosecution
that the accused Ramesh was asking Rs.10,000/- from PW-4
toward litigation cost for which, there was no response and this
was the reason for the accused, to come at the house of the PW-4.
It is relevant to note that the deceased Bharat was nowhere in
picture and he did not have promised nor it was claimed that the
deceased was responsible for Rs.10,000/-. The another witness
PW-5 being wife of the deceased was inside the room and was
taking her dinner with her two daughters and after hearing the

Page 20 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

shouting of demanding of Rs.10000/-, she came out in the open
area of the house, where the deceased was standing. In such
circumstances, the witnesses had an opportunity to closely seen
the accused. The witnesses in their respective testimonies have
clearly stated that the accused Ramesh caused the head injury with
the dagger, whereas, the accused Manoj – appellant armed with
iron rod caused head injury. This version of witnesses being
corroborated by medical evidence. The cause of death was
hemorrhagic shock due to head injury. The witnesses, who
intervened to rescue the deceased also sustained injuries. Thus, in
our opinion the evidence of witnesses read as a whole appears to
have a ring of truth and there is no reason for them to falsely
implicate the appellants accused. It is settled position of law that
ordinarily, a close relatives would be the last to screen the real
culprit and falsely implicate the innocent person. We do not find
any discrepancy in their evidence on the aspect of involvement of
the accused and number of injuries caused by them and therefore,
the version of the witnesses is probable and as such there is no
evidence on record that as a result of enmity between the parties
on the issue of due amount of Rs,10000/- the witnesses are telling
lie. Thus, therefore, though the witnesses are close relatives of the
deceased, their evidence does inspire confidence about the
presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence and injuries
caused by the accused on the body of the deceased. It is also
relevant to note that at the time of incident, no one present from
the neighbourhood and therefore, the plea of non-examination of

Page 21 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

material witnesses would not create a dent in the prosecution case.
Even otherwise, the prosecution is not bound to produce all
witnesses as material witnesses considered necessary by the
prosecution for unfolding the story alone need be produced
without unnecessary multiplication of witnesses. So far as
evidence of child witness Mohini PW:6 is concerned, the Trial
Court appreciated her maturity to understand the questions and
answers to be given and thereafter, after administering the oath to
her, the Court had proceeded to record her evidence. In our
opinion, after close scrutiny of the evidence of child witness
PW:6, we do not find any infirmity that she had deposed under the
influence of her mother or anyone and we noticed that there is a
ring of truth in her evidence and in the cross examination also, her
version has not been shaken so far incident is concerned and her
evidence has been corroborated by the other eye-witnesses.

24. For the reasons aforementioned, the presence of the witnesses at
the place is proved and established and considering the area where
the incident occurred, it would be possible for them to witness the
facts deposed by them and there is no anything inherently,
improbable or unreliable in their evidence as their version on the
aspect of identification of the accused and injuries caused by them
on the body of the deceased are consistent and on material
particulars, they corroborated to each other.

Page 22 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

25. It is the contention of defence that there was a dark due to winter
season and it could not be possible for the witnesses to visualize
the incident. We do not find any substance in the submissions as
the witnesses have categorically stated that there was sufficient
light.

26. The another contention raised is that the evidence of witnesses is
totally inconsistent with the medical evidence. We have closely
scrutinized the medical evidence, more particularly the evidence
of P.M. doctor PW:7. Admittedly, two fatal external injuries
being found and noted in Column No.17 in the P.M. Report
Exh.26 and six internal injuries were being found and noted in
column nos.18 and 25 of P.M. report. The witnesses have
categorically stated that the accused Ramesh caused injuries on
the head of the deceased with weapon dagger and the accused
Manoj armed with iron road, caused injuries on the head. It was
the opinion of the doctor that the injuries noted in column nos.17,
18 and 25 were consistent with each other and the external injuries
could be possible by sharp cutting instrument and the internal
injuries could be possible by blunt object. In such circumstances,
we do not find any inconsistency between the oral and medical
evidence. It is relevant to note that accused Gopi alleged to have
inflicted a knife blow on the face of the deceased and the accused
Amir gave a blow on the chest of the deceased with iron pipe. In
such circumstances, the benefit as claimed with the co-accused
cannot required to be extended with the co-accused.

Page 23 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

27. The next contention raised is that there was delay in lodging the
FIR resulted into embellishment and concoction of the story. In
the present case, the incident of 27.01.2014, occurred between
10:30 to 10:45. The deceased and the injured witness were taken
to Marvad Daman Government Hospital. In this context, the
witnesses have stated that the Daman Police advised them to
approach the Vapi Town Police Station as incident being occurred
under the jurisdiction of Vapi Town Police Station. The
complainant PW:4, came to Vapi Town Police Station in the
earlier morning at about 03:30 a.m. In such circumstances, the
delay has been properly explained by the prosecution. It is well
settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a
ground to doubt the prosecution case and considering the medical
emergency, it is not wise to expect from the complainant party
that they should rush to the jurisdiction police station after the
occurrence and therefore, the conduct of the complainant was
natural in approaching the Vapi Police Station for giving proper
report. Thus, therefore, considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and evidence on record, the delay of
five hours in lodging the FIR does not create a doubt about the
veracity of prosecution case and more particularly where the
eyewitnesses are reliable and trustworthy. Thus, mere a delay of
five hours would not be a ground to discard the entire prosecution
case.

Page 24 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

28. In such circumstances, as referred above, it is proved and
established that the appellant accused – A1 and A2 caused fatal
injuries with the dangerous weapon to the deceased Bharatbhai, as
a result, he succumbed to the injuries.

29. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the
accused appellants are guilty for the offence of murder as defined
under Section 300 Indian Penal Code or death cause was culpable
homicide not amount to murder under Section 304 Indian Penal
Code ?

30. We have carefully examined the oral as well as medical evidence.
The appellants accused are the author of the crime. The cause of
death was hemorrhagic shock due to head injuries. The accused
A1 Ramesh had stabbed the deceased on his head with dagger and
the accused Manoj A2 hit the head with iron rod and the injuries
as per the opinion of the doctor were sufficient in ordinate course
to cause the death.

31. It is the prosecution to prove the case against the accused that he
has committed murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC.
Section 300 provides that, culpable homicide is ‘murder’, if the
act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death or if it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury, as the offender knows to be likely to cause death or
if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury and the said

Page 25 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in ordinary course of
nature to cause death or the accused knows that, it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, caused death
or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

32. Bearing in mind the legal provision and having regard to the facts
and evidence on record, the injuries caused on the body of the
deceased was on the vital parts and same was being caused with
dangerous weapon like dagger and iron rod. The appellants
accused carried with the dagger and iron rod.

As per the opinion of the doctor, the external injuries found
on the head were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause
death and it could be possible by the weapons dagger and iron rod.
The PM doctor also clarified that, the injuries mentioned in
column no. 17 of the PM report, could be possible by sharp
cutting instrument, whereas the injuries mentioned in column nos.
18 and 25 could be possible with blunt object. In such
circumstances, causing injuries on the vital parts with dangerous
weapons lead to inference that the accused with all intent inflict
that particular injuries and it is not the case of the accused that, the
injuries inflicted were unintentional and intended to inflict on the
other part of the body but due to movement of the deceased, the
injuries inflicted on the head and other part by accident. The
intention of the accused can also be gathered from the
circumstances like, their presence at the spot with the dangerous

Page 26 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

weapons, the dispute of Rs.10,000/- was with PW-4 and despite of
this, the deceased was victimized and was fatally assaulted. It is
settled position of law that, when a person performs an act, he is
attributed with the intention to cause the natural consequences,
that follows from the act performed. We have also noticed the
factum of demanding Rs.10,000/- by the accused from PW-4. The
criminal case still pending with the competent court and why the
accused Ramesh demanding Rs.10,000/- that has not been cleared
by either side and therefore, it cannot be said that without
premeditation, in a sudden fight, upon sudden quarrel, in a hit of
passion, the act was committed.

33. We may profitably refer the law laid down by the Supreme Court
in the case of Virsa Singh, AIR 1958 SC 465. In the said
judgment, it was held that, a culpable homicide is a murder under
Section 300 clause Thirdly, if the prosecution should establish
four elements (i) the presence of bodily injury, (ii) nature of such
bodily injury (iii) intention on the part of accused to inflict such
bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or
unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended, (iv)
the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. The Supreme Court on the question as to how the intention
to be inferred, has succinctly stated :

"In considering whether the intention was to inflict the
injury found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily
proceeds on broad lines as, for example, whether there was
an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot, and

Page 27 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury
found to have been inflicted x x x x The question is not
whether the prisoner intended to inflict a serious injury or
a trivial one but whether he intended to inflict the injury
that is proved to be present. If he can show that he did not,
or if the totality of the circumstances justify such an
inference, then, of course, the intent that the section
requires is not proved. But if there is nothing beyond the
injury and the fact that the appellant inflicted it, the only
possible inference is that he intended to inflict it. Whether
he knew of its seriousness, or intended some consequences,
is neither here nor there. The question, so far as the
intention is concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or
to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness,
but whether he intended to inflict the injury in question;
and once the existence of the injury is proved the intention
to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the
circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. But
whether the intention is there or not is one of fact and not
one of law. Whether the wound is serious or otherwise, and
if serious, how serious, is a totally separate and distinct
question and has nothing to do with the question whether
the prisoner intended to inflict the injury in question."

34. In the present case, as discussed above, the injuries were caused
with a dangerous weapons on the vital parts of the body and there
were fractures on both the side of parietal bones with hemorrhage
and the manner in which, the accused assembled near the house of
the deceased, the only possible inference would that, the accused
intended to inflict the blows on vital parts of the deceased. In
other words, the act was done with an intention of causing such
bodily injury and bodily injury intended to be inflicted were
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and while
inflicting such injury, the accused had taken undue advantage of

Page 28 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

the situation and acted in unusual manner.
35. For the aforementioned reasons, we came to conclusion that, the
act of the accused fall within the clause thirdly and fourthly of
Section 300 of the IPC, and would not fall in any exception to
Section 300 of the IPC and same is read as under :
“Section 300 : xxxxxx
Secondly, .........…
Thirdly, : if it is done with intention of causing bodily
injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of action to
cause death
or
Fourthly, - if the person committing the act knows that, it
is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability,
cause death or such bodily injury as it likely to cause death
and commit such an act, without any excuse for incurring
the risk of causing death or such injuries as aforesaid.”

36. In view of the aforesaid discussions, after re-analysis and re-
appreciation of the evidence and on perusal of the impugned
judgment of conviction, we are satisfied that, prosecution has
proved its case with sufficient oral and documentary evidence,
beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellants were the author of
the crime and the trial Court has rightly found the appellants
accused guilty for act of murder punishable under Section 302
read with Section 114 of the IPC. We do not find any scope for
interference with the findings of conviction and sentence recorded
by the trial Court.

Page 29 of 30
R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

37. The acquittal appeal is being filed against the acquittal of accused
Nos. 3 and 4 for the charge of murder. The trial Court while
acquitting the accused, did not find acceptable and trustworthy
evidence against the accused for proving the charge of murder.
We have also examined the evidence on this aspect and we do not
find any legal infirmity, perversity or fundamental error in
appreciation of the evidence undertaken by the trial Court and
therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is possible and
plausible view and the trial Court was justified in acquitting the
accused.

38. In the result, this conviction appeals being Criminal Appeal No.
1507 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2021stand
dismissed, whereas, the acquittal appeal being Criminal Appeal
No. 1553 of 2017 stands dismissed. R&P, if any, be sent back to
the trial Court forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
P.S. JOSHI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/01/2026 14:49:56

Page 30 of 30