KAMAL KISHOR @ RAJU SURENDRASINGH SUDAMASINGH YADAVversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.A/418/2013                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 418 of 2013


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                  Yes          No

==========================================================
     KAMAL KISHOR @ RAJU SURENDRASINGH SUDAMASINGH YADAV
                             Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. VIPUL B SUNDESHA(6689) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

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

                                Date : 06/02/2026

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

             (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1.      Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 01/11/2012 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge (Principal Court), Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.31 of 2012,
whereby the appellant – accused has been is convicted and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under sections 302 of
the Indian Penal Code along with the fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of


                                    Page 1 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




which further six months of simple imprisonment; convicted and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under
sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code along with the fine of Rs. 10,000/-,
in default further four months of simple imprisonment is imposed;
convicted and sentenced to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment
for offence punishable under sections 328 of the Indian Penal Code along
with the fine of Rs.6,000/- in default of which further three months of
simple imprisonment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for
short).


2.       The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as
under:


2.1      It is the case of prosecution that the sister of the appellant was
having an affair with one Gaurang Prajapati and when the appellant came
to know about the said affair prior to four months from filing of the
F.I.R., the appellant sought help of his friends namely deceased
Mangalsinh Maiyadin Prajapati, the informant- Manish Rathod and the
victim- Pankaj Upadhyay, to help him in eliminating the said Mr.Gaurang
Prajapati, but the said three friends of the appellant denied helping him in
eliminating Gaurang Prajapati. It is further alleged that keeping grudge of
the same after four months, the appellant with the intention to commit
murder of all his three friends namely deceased- Mangalsinh Maiyadin
Prajapati, Manish Rathod and Pankaj Upadhyay, on 22.01.2012, the
appellant invited them to party saying that it is being arranged towards his
pending birthday party. It is further alleged that thereafter, liquor was
arranged and all of them decided to involve in such party, whereby the
appellant brought three dabelis mixing aconite poison therein and when
they were partying the appellant gave them the said dabeli to eat, and

                                  Page 2 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                              JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




after consuming the same, three friends of the appellant started vomiting,
thereafter, they were admitted to the Satyamev Hospital, where the
deceased- Mangalsinh Maiyadin Prajapati died and the two were given
medical treatment and thus, the appellant committed offence punishable
under section 307, 302, 328 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.


2.2      Accordingly, FIR being CR No.14 of 2012 came to be registered
with Chandkheda Police Station. The Police after investigation charge-
sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences before the learned JMFC,
Court. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try offence under
Section 302 IPC, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. On
conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the learned
Sessions Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the
evidence to the respondent-accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as
provided under Section 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the
respondents-accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing
against them as false and further stated that he is innocent and a false case
has been filed against him. After examining the evidence, witness
testimonies and submissions from both sides, the learned Sessions Court
recorded the finding convicting the respondent-accused.


3.       We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant – convict and
learned APP for the respondent-State and minutely examined oral and
documentary evidence adduced and produced before the learned Sessions
Court concerned.


4.       Learned advocate appearing for the appellant – accused has
submitted that since the entire case of the prosecution rests on the
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond the reasonable doubt and does not prove that the entire chain and

                                 Page 3 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                              JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




therefore, learned Sessions Court has erred in convicting the appellant –
accused. It is further submitted that if the FIR in question is seen at the
first instance, as such no specific role pointing out in commission of the
crime. It is therefore submitted that when the conduct of the prosecution
witnesses are highly unnatural and improbable and inconsistent and
therefore, learned Sessions Court ought to have awarded the benefit of
doubt to the appellant – accused.


4.1      It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Court has awarded
the conviction on the appellant – accused on the basis of the scientific
evidence whereby the so-called poison was used in commission of crime
but as per the evidence on record the said so-called poison is not available
in the State of Gujarat and the prosecution has failed to bring on record
the source of purchase of such poison at the instance of the appellant-
accused. It is further submitted that as such no direct evidence to link the
accused with the crime in question has come forward and therefore, the
theory on the basis of which the conviction has been recorded is
erroneous and therefore the appellants – accused ought to have been
acquitted.


4.2      It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Court has heavily
relied upon the evidence of the complainant and victim who were in fact
with the appellant – accused at the time of commission of offence and
therefore evidence of these witnesses also come under the shadow of
doubt and therefore, it is submitted that present appeal may be allowed
and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Court
may be set aside.


4.3      In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the appellant –
accused has relied upon the decision in case of Shail Kumari v. State of

                                  Page 4 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                           JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




Chhattisgarh, reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75681, where the
Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the judgment in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC
116 has held that prosecution must stand and fall on its own legs and in
case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude
every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.


4.4      He also relied upon the decision in case of Laxman Prasad Alias
Laxman vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2023) 6 SCC 399] and
Munikrishna alias Krishna etc. vs. State by Ulsoor PS [2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1449] and has submitted that as per the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court if one link in chain of circumstances to be missing
and not proved, the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is
required to be set aside.


4.5      By making the above submissions, learned advocate for the
appellants – accused would submit to allow this appeal and to quash and
set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.


5.       Mr.J K Shah, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State
submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence does not
require to be interfered with as the learned Sessions Court has after
thorough appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion and
recorded the conviction of the appellant – accused on the basis of the
evidence adduced before the Court. It is further submitted that the
evidence produced on record proves the involvement of the accused in
the commission of crime in question. He has further submitted that
evidence of the witnesses examined before the Court has supported the
case of prosecution and narrated the incident as it was happened. It was

                                 Page 5 of 18
     R/CR.A/418/2013                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




submitted that no such omission or contradiction in the evidence of the
said witnesses have come on record to discard their evidence. He has
further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have deposed before the
Court narrating the entire chain of sequence whereby the involvement of
the accused is proved which corroborates with the scientific evidence
produced and proved by the prosecution and therefore, the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence may not be interfered with.


6.      Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant – accused Mr.P P
Majmudar and learned APP Mr.J K Shah for the respondent – State and
perused the deposition of witnesses as also documentary evidence placed
on record as well as the order passed by the learned Sessions Court.


7.      At the outset, if the case on hand is seen, it is a case of a
circumstantial evidence and while leading the case, the prosecution is
required to establish the link of chain to connect the accused with the
crime. Thus, while dealing with the evidence on record, the Court
concerned is required to appreciate as to whether the evidence produced
on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution or not and if no
then the benefit of that would go to the accused as the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt while missing to
complete the entire of circumstance.


8.      Now, reverting to the facts of the case on hand is concerned, it
appears from the record if the case of the prosecution is seen, the
appellant-accused by keeping grudge over the relationship of his sister
with one Gaurang Prajapati asked his friends to eliminate him; to which
his friends denied and therefore keeping grudge over the said aspect and
to kill all his friends, he invited them to give his pending birthday party
where he offered them Dabeli mixed with some poisonous substance and

                                 Page 6 of 18
     R/CR.A/418/2013                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




out of them one Mr.Mangal Prajapati was died while two were admitted
in the hospital and survived.


        Thus, in background of the above facts the evidence of the
important witnesses examined by the prosecution is required to be re-
appreciated.


9.      PW 16 – Manish Pappubhai Rambabu Rathod complainant is
examined at Exh-69. Witness has deposed in his testimony that he was
driving       his      CNG   passenger     Rikshaw     bearing      Registration
No.GJ-1CU-1801. Witness has further deposed that the incident took
place on 22/01/20212. Witness has further deposed that after parking his
rickshaw, Kamal and Pintu @ Pankaj met him and shook his hand with
Kamal. Kamal asked him that he had seen after a long time and he
wanted to offer his birthday party since it was overdue and thereafter they
decided to arrange a party. Witness has further deposed that Pankaj called
Janak for liquor bottle and therefore this witness alongwith Kamal went
to bring liquor bottle and came to house of Pinku @ Pankaj and hid the
liquor bottle. Witness had gone to his home and thereafter returned and
waiting on the road where Kamal came on his bike carrying one
polythene bag containing Dabeli for his home and it was stated by Kamal
that after giving it at his home, he will come back and thereafter Mangal
came and they waited near J P Pan Parlour. This witness has further
deposed that Kamal and Pinku came in the car near J P Pan Parlour and
sat in the car and thereafter came on the highway and party was started.
Kamal brought Dabeli. Kamal brought three Dabeli after giving two
Dabeli at his home and thereafter liquor peg was prepared and having
asked as to where-from, he bought this Dabeli, he stated that that it was
bought from Maheshabhai’s lorry. This witness has further deposed that
Mangal offered his half Dabeli to Kamal; to which he stated that he

                                   Page 7 of 18
   R/CR.A/418/2013                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




already ate this at his home and thereafter, they prepared another peg and
Mangal and Pinku continued to eat Dabeli; Mangal completed his half
Dabeli whereas this witness after completing his half Dabeli felt some
sensation on his tongue and stated that it is salty and thereafter witness
alongwith Mangal and Pankaj ate Dabeli and since witness felt some
sensation on his tongue, he did not eat and threw the Dabeli. Witness
after eating Dabeli started vomiting and thereafter Mangal and Pankaj
also started vomiting where Kamal stated that liquor is not good and
thereafter Mangal called Janak that due to consumption of alcohol and
eating of Dabeli, he is not well and to come soon and therefore Janak
came on his bike and thereafter all four of them had gone to Panchshil
Hospital in the Wagon R Car of Pankaj where Kamal informed that police
case would be filed and therefore, they went to Parimal Hospital where
they met Parulben and treatment was given to him; however since health
of Mangal got deteriorated, Parulben asked him to take him at another
hospital and therefore Mangal called his two friends viz., Anil and Morari
where-from they had been to Pokhraj Hospital however since there was
no bed, they went to Indus Hospital where also ICU bed was not available
and thereafter they went to Satyamev Hospital where treatment of this
witness, Mangal and Panakaj was started and thereafter made a call in the
night at the residence of Mangal and this witness. This witness has
deposed that in the night, he came to know that Mangal was dead. While
treatment was going on for them, at that time, Kamal was present at the
hospital. This witness has further deposed that Kavita, sister of Kamal
was having affair with one Gaurang and Mangal had seen both of them,
who in turn informed this to Kamal and after about one or two days
thereof, Kamal informed to this witness and Mangal to kill Gaurang to
which they asked him not to do such thing and thus Kamal kept grudge
over the same. Kamal also stated that why they were sitting with his
enemy. Witness has identified the accused before the Court.

                                Page 8 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                            JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




         During the cross-examination of this witness, witness has stated
that he does not know the date of birth and month of the Kamal. Witness
has also stated that he does not know as to who did mix-up in the liquor,
panipuri or Dabeli on the day of the incident. This witness has also stated
and admitted during the cross-examination the facts which he did not
mention in the complaint. Thus, from the narration of above facts, it
would appear that there are contradictions in the facts stated in the
complaint given by the complainant and the facts stated by him on oath
before the Court and therefore, it would create a doubt on the case of the
prosecution. In such circumstances, when there are omissions and
contradictions in the evidence of the complainant, it would be risky to
believe the evidence of the complainant. Thus, the evidence of the
complainant is shaky and therefore cannot be relied upon to award
conviction.


10.      PW 21 – Mahesh Desaji Prajapati who has been examined at
Exh.75 who was the seller of the Dabeli. Witness has deposed in his
testimony that on 22/01/2012 while he was standing at Visat Three
Roads, Near Jogni Mata’s Temple, at that time, at about 9:00 to 9:15
hours in the night, Kamal resident of Shiv Shakti Society, Motera, Behind
Parimal Hospital came to him and took five Dabeli for which he took
Rs.30/- and went away on his bike.


         During the cross-examination of this witness, this witness has
stated that he does not know the fact as to who had come to purchase
Dabeli at about 9:15 p.m. Thus, though the witness has examination in
chief has stated about the fact of accused having come to bring Dabeli
but; in the cross-examination, he stated that he does not remember as to
who came to bring Dabeli and therefore, evidence of this witness also is
not credible to corroborate with the evidence of the complainant and to

                                 Page 9 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                            JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




prove the case of prosecution.


11.      PW 24 – Pankaj Ashokbhai Upadhyay who was victim in the
incident in question has been examined at Exh.78. Witness has deposed
his evidence before the Court and narrated the incident; however during
the cross-examination, he has admitted such facts of he having not
recorded in his police statement. Thus, the evidence of this witness also
found to be shaky to believe the case of prosecution and therefore
evidence of this witness also comes under the shadow of doubt.


12.      PW 25 – Gaurang Dilipbhai Prajapati has been examined at
Exh.80. Witness has deposed in his testimony that he and Kavita were
studying together and having having love affair and therefore, he
performed court marriage with her on 10/10/2011; however as the family
members were not happy, after about one and half month, they took
divorce and Kavita was sent to her native Village. Witness has further
deposed that prior to eight months of the incident, Kamal came to him
and asked as to why did he keep relationship with his sister as he did not
like, as also Manish, Mangal and Pankaj also informed him about not to
keep any relationship with Kavita and therefore, they took divorce.


         Now, if the evidence of PW 24 – Pankaj and PW 25 – Gaurang is
examined, Pankaj in the cross-examination of his evidence stated that
prior to four months of the incident Kamal informed him, Mangal and
Manish to kill one boy named Gaurang who is having affair with his
sister. Whereas, PW 25 – Gaurang has deposed in his evidence before
the Court that they did court marriage in the year October, 2011 and after
about one and half month, they took divorce. Thus, there are major
contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses with regard to the
fact of scuffle having taken place of the appellant-accused with any of

                                 Page 10 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




these two witnesses prior to incident in question.


13.      Now, insofar as the medical evidence is concerned, the prosecution
has examined PW 3 – Dr. Anish Mahashanker Joshi, at Exh.38. Witness
has deposed in his testimony that on 23/01/2012, he was serving as
Consultant at Satyamev Hospital, Chandkheda. Witness has deposed in
his testimony that when he reached to Hospital, Mangalsing Maiyuddin
Prajapati brought to the hospital where he was declared as dead and to
that effect certificate at Exh.22 was issued. This witness has further
deposed that he attended Pankaj first and took history for causation
wherein he stated that he ate two Dabeli and took three peg of alcohol on
22/01/2012 at about 10:00 p.m. and since he did not feel good, he went to
Panchshil Hospital and Indus Hospital where bed is not available and
therefore, came to Satyamev Hospital. This witness has deposed that he
kept them for treatment from 23/01/2012 to 26/01/2012 at the hospital
and as per the history given aconite poison was suspected for which
sample was sent to Search Poison Lab, Vadaj, Ahmedabad; but aconite
was not found to be confirmed. Witness has further deposed that he
further called Poison Specialist, Dr. Aruna Divan who had confirmed the
aconite poison.


         During the cross-examination, this witness has stated that he
specifically asked the patients as to whether they added any additional
substance in the alcohol to increase the intoxication, to which they replied
in affirmative; but did not indicate as to which kind of substance was
mixed up. He further stated in the cross-examination that it is true that
drugs addicts would add tablets or powder in the alcohol. Thus, from the
evidence of above witness, it does not appear that aconite poison is
confirmed to have been added.



                                  Page 11 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




         Furthermore, as per the postmortem report at Exh.23 issued by PW
No.1 – Dr. Hetalben Chinubhai Patel, who has been examined at Exh.18,
the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to aconite poisons. In
this regard, if the cross-examination of PW 1 – Dr.Hetalben is examined,
she admits that she does know about the aconite poison which is a kind of
a plant growing in Himalaya and a kind of unstable poison. She states
that it is true that aconite poison is not available in Gujarat.


         Thus, there are major contradictions in the scientific / medical
evidence as regards the presence of aconite poison wherein one lab does
not confirm the presence of aconite poison whilst the postmortem report
speaks about aconite poison and the Doctor who performed the
postmortem states that this aconite poison is not found in State of Gujarat.


14.      PW 26 – Somaji Thavarji Asari, PSI, Chandkheda Police Station
has been examined at Exh.81 who has deposed that on 22/01/2011 as per
written order, he went for investigation of the offence in question with
appellant - accused at Uttar Pradesh where he inquired at the Ayurvedic
Shop owned by one Jayprakash Balmukand Gupta and recorded his
statement. However, during the cross-examination, he has admitted that
said statement of the shop owner does not become the part of charge-
sheet.


         Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the source as to where-
from the aconite poison, if any, was brought by the appellant-accused to
kill the deceased and it was the specific case of the prosecution that
deceased was died due to consumption of poison like aconite substance as
is revealed from the postmortem report.


15.      PW 2 – Mohammed Zakir Abdul Ajij Shaikh has been examined at

                                   Page 12 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                            JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




Exh.25 who was serving as Scientific Officer, FSL Office, Ahmedabad
and this witness has deposed in his testimony about the procedure of
being analysis of the muddamal sent by the IO is narrated. Witness has
also referred in his testimony about the analysis report of the Biology
Department wherein on the Mark–A, the marks of vomiting is not found.
Witness has further deposed that total 21 articles were forwarded by the
IO through forwarding letter at Exh.26 wherein the IO has cited ten
reasons for examination of the muddamal article. However, the said
reasons were not dealt with or given reply by the FSL after examining
comprehensive reports. Thus, this also speaks volume about the
conclusion of the report.


16.      In light of the above mentioned re-appreciation of evidence, the
facts which would emerge from the record are that there are omissions
and contradictions in the version of the complainant as regards to non-
mention of some of the facts in the evidence recorded before the Court
and the facts stated by him while recording the complaint; the motive part
of the appellant – accused to commit murder is that since deceased –
Mangal had seen Kavita sister of appellant – accused with Gaurang
Prajapati who in turn told this fact to appellant – accused and therefore
accused told to Manish (complainant), Pankaj and deceased – Manish to
kill Gaurang; who have refused to do so and thus by keeping grudge over
the said dispute, he after mixing up the poison in the Dabeli offered to
these persons to kill them which is the case of prosecution. However, as
per the evidence of the complainant, the so-called incident of having seen
Gaurang and Kavita took place prior to four-five months of registration of
the FIR and it also appears from the evidence of the complainant that two
persons viz., Ashok and Murari are the best friend of the accused and
therefore, if the appellant – accused wanted to kill Gaurang, he could
have talked to them and neither of them have been examined by the

                                 Page 13 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




prosecution. Furthermore, as regards the timing of the purchase of Dabeli,
there are contradictions in the said timing because the person from whom
the Dabeli was purchased stated that it was purchased at 9:00 p.m.,
however during the cross-examination he stated that he did not remember
as to who had purchased the Dabeli; as also the witnesses examined
before the Court have also stated that appellant – accused went away at
8:00 p.m. after purchasing Dabeli. Thus, there are omissions and
contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined before the Court
and therefore the case of the prosecution comes under the shadow of
doubt.


17.          Insofar as the presence of aconite poison is concerned, the
prosecution has failed to point out as to where-from it was purchased by
the appellant – accused though efforts were made by the IO by sending
the PSI to UP alongwith appellant – accused to one Ayurvedic Store and
statement was also recorded of the said owner of Ayurvedi Store; but that
was not made the part of charge-sheet which also creates doubt on the
case of prosecution. Furthermore, as per the evidence of PW No.1 – Dr.
Hetalben Chinubhai Patel (Exh.18), she does know about the aconite
poison which is a kind of a plant growing in Himalaya and a kind of
unstable poison and states that aconite poison is not available in State of
Gujarat. Simultaneously, in the cross-examination of PW 3–Dr.Anish
Mahashanker Joshi, at Exh.38 who has examined the patients at the first
instance specifically asked them as to whether they added any additional
substance in the alcohol to increase the intoxication, to which they replied
in affirmative; but did not indicate as to which kind of substance was
mixed up. Thus, the possibility of additional substance added by them in
their drink proved to be fatal and harmful also cannot be discarded in
absence of any other evidence produced by the prosecution. All these
aspects have not been satisfactorily answered by the prosecution to prove

                                 Page 14 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore in such circumstances
such benefit would go to the appellant – accused.

18.      In Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh [2023
INSC 986], the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 has observed that in
the case of murder by poison, the prosecution must prove following four
circumstances: -
         “(1) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to
         the deceased,
         (2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been
         administered,
         (3) that the accused had the poison in his possession,
         (4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the
         deceased.”

         However, as discussed in the earlier paragraph, in the instant case
none of these circumstances were proved by the prosecution.


19.      In light of the appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, it appears that
this is not a case where the entire chain of circumstantial evidence is
completed as required under the law so as to indicate the guilt of the
accused and also exclude any other theory of crime. In the case on hand,
the learned Sessions Judge has erred in noticing such aspect as to whether
any such motive is proved by the prosecution. Likewise, the omissions
and contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and its non-
corroboration with other evidence which takes the entire story of the
prosecution under the shadow of doubt.


20.      In view of the detailed discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, in
consonance with the material placed for consideration as relied upon by


                                    Page 15 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




the prosecution and confronted by the defence, and having regard to the
conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, it is undisputed that,
as elaborately discussed hereinabove, the entire case of the prosecution
rests solely on circumstantial evidence. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Shail Kumari v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2025 (0)
AIJEL-SC 75681, while considering the judgment in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (supra) has held that
prosecution must stand and fall on its own legs and in case of
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must
be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistence with the innocence of the accused
and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused.

21.      In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain is required to be
completed as mandated under the law so as to indicate the guilt of the
accused while discarding any other theory of the crime. If one of the link
goes missing and not proved, in view of the settled law on the point, the
conviction is required to be interfered with. At this stage, with profit, we
may refer to the decision in case of Laxman Prasad Alias Laxman
(supra) where the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] and
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan vs. State of Gujarat [(2020) 14 SCC 750] has
quashed the conviction by making observations in paragraph 2 to 4 as
under:
         “2.      The present one is a case of circumstantial evidence. The
         prosecution led evidence to establish three links of the chain:

                                     Page 16 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




         (i) motive, (ii) last seen, and (iii) recovery of weapon of
         assault, at the pointing out of the appellant. The High Court,
         while dealing with the evidence on record, agreed with the
         finding of motive and the last seen, however, insofar as the
         recovery of the weapon of assault and bloodstained clothes
         were concerned, the High Court in para 18 of the judgment
         held the same to be invalid and also goes to the extent to say
         that the recovery which has been made does not indicate that
         the appellant has committed the offence. Still, it observed that
         looking to the entire gamut and other clinching evidence
         against the appellant of last seen and motive, affirmed the
         conviction.
         3.       We do not find such conclusion of the High Court to be
         strictly in accordance with law. In a case of circumstantial
         evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to
         indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other
         theory of the crime. The law is well settled on the above point.
         Reference may be had to the following cases:


         (1) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
         (ii) Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat.


         4.       Thus, if the High Court found one of the links to be
         missing and not proved in view of the settled law on the point,
         the conviction ought to have been interfered with.”


22.      In view of the settled law that one must look for a complete chain


                                    Page 17 of 18
      R/CR.A/418/2013                                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not
make a complete sequence. The circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is drawn should be fully proved, and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete,
and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence; in the present
case, the chain is not completed.


23.       In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in
the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that the case of the
prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the
learned Sessions Court, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and is
accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 01/11/2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Principal Court),
Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.31 of 2012 is quashed and set aside.
The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and he is
ordered to be set at liberty, forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Bail Bond shall stand discharged. Records and Proceedings, if any, be
remitted to the Court concerned forthwith.


                                                                                             (ILESH J. VORA,J)



                                                                                          (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura


 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
 Digitally signed by: MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA SOMPURA(HC00189), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/02/2026 12:24:52




                                                      Page 18 of 18