RANCHHOD @ RASO DAYALBHAI KANANIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.A/478/2017                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
      R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 478 of 2017
                               With
                 R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 926 of 2017

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

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

            Approved for Reporting                  Yes          No

==========================================================
                       RANCHHOD @ RASO DAYALBHAI KANANI
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.478 of 2017:
MR PRATIK BAROT WITH MS ALPA J DAVE(3924) for the Appellant.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.926 OF 2017:
MR TATVADEEP JANI for the Appellant.
MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1-State
HARSHADKUMAR D PANCHAL(9015) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1. YUVRAJ B SOLANKI(8318) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

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

                                Date : 10/02/2026

                            COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

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


1.      Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned 5th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.52 of 2015

                                    Page 1 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                             JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, whereby the appellants – accused has been sentenced for the
offence punishable under Section 302 and 34 of the IPC to undergo
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default, to undergo six
months SI, the appellants have 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      That on 13.10.2017 in the morning at about 10.30 a phone call was
received of one Pragjibhai who informed that Ashok who left residence
since 4 O’ clock and had not still returned. It is stated that the
complainant has also made enquiry about Ashok at various places.
However his whereabouts were not found. It is stated that Ranjt, Ashok's
friend who came and informed that Ashok lastly seen at Kumbharwada
on Sunday and thereafter his whereabouts were not found. It is stated that
one Ranjitbhai to whom the enquiry was made and he informed that lastly
he came on Saturday and thereafter his whereabouts were not found. It is
stated that one Manubhai who is Manager of the factory, informed that
the motorcycle of Ashok was lying in Kumbharwada and thereafter one
Dilipbhai Kanani, Vijay, Ajay Lalji and thereafter all went to
Kumbharwada and found that Ashok motorcycle was lying there. It is
stated that the complainant has thereafter called Hareshbhai and again
made enquiry to the nearby places. It is stated that on further making
enquiry to the wife of Ashok she informed that around 4 O'clock Ashok
went outside and till 11.30 his phone was found on and conversation was
made with him. However thereafter his whereabouts were not found and
his phone was found switched off. It is also alleged that the friend of
Ashok to whom the enquiry was made namely Ranjit, thereafter

                                  Page 2 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                              JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




Ranchhod then Gipin, Mukesh @ Munno, Ashish Sursang and when the
enquiry was made with all, everybody was giving different versions,
under the circumstances they were taken to the police station and wife of
Ashok namely Bhavikaben had given missing entry.


2.2 It is alleged that 7 O'clock in the morning the friend of the
complainant Jaisingbhai namely Dineshbhai and his uncle that dead body
of Ashok is found near the motorcycle and thereafter all went to the place
and found that dead body of Ashok was lying there. It is stated that
thereafter post mortem was carried and the complaint was filed on
suspicion that any of the six as referred in the FIR have committed the
offence of murder.


2.3      Accordingly, FIR being CR No.119 of 2014 came to be registered
with Bortalav 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 Mr.Pratik Barot for the appellant
– convict – original accused No.1, learned Advocate Mr.Tatvadeep J Jani
for the appellant – convict – original accused No.2 and learned APP for

                                 Page 3 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




the respondent-State and minutely examined oral and documentary
evidence adduced and produced before the learned Sessions Court
concerned.


4.       Learned advocate Mr.Pratik Barot appearing for Ms.Alpa J Dave,
learned advocate appearing for the appellant – original accused No.1 has
submitted that in spite of PW 24 – Dilipbhai Jadavbhai Kanani cited as
witness in the charge-sheet for the reasons best known to the prosecution,
the said witness has not been examined by the prosecution; neither the
prosecution has given any application to examine the said PW 24 as
witness nor the learned Sessions Court has taken care to examine the said
PW 24 as witness before the Court. He would further submit that no TI
parade is held and therefore merely on the basis of suspicion the name of
the appellant – accused No.1 was implicated.


4.1      He would further submit 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 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, the complainant gave the name of
the accused on the basis of the presumption of doubt and as such no
specific role or description of the accused having seen at the place of
offence pointing out the role of the accused 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 – original accused No.1.


4.2      In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.BBarot has

                                 Page 4 of 16
     R/CR.A/478/2017                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




relied upon the following case law and submit to allow the appeal of the
appellant – original accused No.1.
     1. K.P. Tamilmaran Versus State By Deputy Superintendent Of
        Police [2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75170]
     2. Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh
        [2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 72607]
     3. Mohd. Rijwan Versus State Of Haryana [2023 (0) AIJEL-SC
        72606]
     4. Rama Devi Versus State Of Bihar And Others [2024 (0) AIJEL-SC
        74101]
     5. Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat [2025 (0)
        AIJEL - SC 76265]
     6. Amrik Singh Versus State Of Punjab [2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 69513]
     7. Ranvir Singh Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh [2023 (0) AIJEL-
        SC 70364]
     8. P.Sasikumar Versus State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police [2024
        (0) AIJEL-SC 73743]
     9. Padman Bibhar Versus State Of Odisha [2025 (0) AIJEL-SC
        75382]
     10.Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan Versus State Of Assam [2025 (0)
        AIJEL-SC 74790]
     11.Dinesh Kumar Versus State Of Haryana [2023 (0) AIJEL -SC
        70975]
     12.Arun Shankar Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh [2024 (0) AIJEL-
        SC 73526]
     13.Ramy Appa Mahapatar Versus State Of Maharashtra [2025 (0)
        AIJEL-SC 74673].
5.      Learned Advocate Mr.Tatvadeep J Jani appearing for the appellant
– original accused No.2 has submitted that org. accused No.2 was
arraigned as an accused on the basis of the statement of the co-accused

                                Page 5 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                               JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




which is not admissible in the eye of law. He would submit that there is
no evidence or any circumstances from which it can be inferred that there
was common intention of the appellant with other accused person to
commit crime. He would submit that the entire prosecution case is based
on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firmly
established and the chain of circumstantial evidence must be completed
from the facts. Whereas, in the case on hand, the chain of circumstances
individually is not proved by the prosecution against the appellant.


5.1      He would further submit that the name of the present appellant was
not mentioned in the complaint and six persons are named in the
complaint who have assembled together with the deceased in the evening
of the date of incident to consume liquor and out of those six persons who
were present with the deceased, five persons are shown as prosecution
witnesses. He would further submit that out of the six suspect who
assembled with the deceased on the date of incident, the prosecution has
examined PW 14-Ranjitbhai, PW 15-Ashokbhai, PW 16-Jipinbhai,
However, no one has identified the appellant nor have they seen the
present appellant on the date of the incident. He would submit that there
is no recovery of discovery from the org. accused No.2 and no test
identification parade of the appellant-org. accused No.2 was held.


5.2      It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution rests on the
last seen together theory where no such independent witness is examined
before the Court who have seen the deceased and the accused together
prior to commission of the offence in question 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.


5.3      By making the above submissions, learned advocate for the

                                   Page 6 of 16
     R/CR.A/478/2017                               JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




appellants – accused would submit to allow this appeal and to quash and
set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.


6.      Mr.Bhargav Pandya, 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
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.


7.      Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the appellants – original
accused Nos.1 and 2 and learned APP 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.


8.      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 mainly three links of chain (i) motive; (ii) last seen;
and (iii) recovery of weapon of assault, showing involvement of the

                                 Page 7 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                             JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




accused. Thus, while dealing with the evidence on record, the Court
concerned is required to appreciate as to whether the aforesaid three
aspect is completed 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.


9.       Reverting to the facts of the case on hand is concerned, it is the
case of prosecution that nephew of the complainant – Ashokbhai was
working with PW No.20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 at the Diamond Factory and
since on 12/10/2024 was holiday, PW No.24 and his uncle, org. accused
No.1 went to take break-fast and after having returned the witnesses had
gone to their residence whereas PW No.24 and deceased – Ashokbhai
went to drop org. accused No.1 on the motorcycle and having reached
near Kumbharvada Bathabhai Chowk, PW No.24 and org. accused No.1
had boarded off and went away; however in the meanwhile, org. accused
No.2 came and they knew each other went with the deceased to eat non-
veg food at Madhiya Road and in the night when accused persons had
asked the deceased to give his motorcycle to bring liquor to which he had
denied and by taking cause of such denial started quarrel, fall him on the
ground and by inflicting stone on his head caused serious injuries and
threw his dead body into the ditch and committed murder of the deceased.


10.       Now, in the above background of facts, if the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses examined; the first and foremost aspect of the
matter is that though PW 24 - Dilipbhai Jadavbhai Kanani cited as
witness in the charge-sheet and lastly seen the deceased alive in the
company of the present appellants – accused, for the reasons best known
to the prosecution, the said witness has not been examined by the
prosecution; neither the prosecution has given any application to examine

                                  Page 8 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                               JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




the said PW 24 as witness nor the learned Sessions Court has taken care
to examine the said PW 24 as witness before the Court.


11.      PW 12 – Rasikbhai Vaghabhai Vegad, complainant, is examined at
Exh.35. Witness has deposed in his testimony that incident took place on
12/10/2014 and he came to know on 13/10/2014 at the factory. Witness
has deposed that he was called by Premjibhai that Ashok left from the
home at 4:00 O’clock yesterday but did not return and therefore he started
searching for him. Witness has deposed in his testimony that he inquired
with the Manager of the factory where he came to know that deceased did
not come to work from the morning. This witness has deposed in his
testimony that thereafter he went to factory where he met Ranjit, friend of
Ashok who informed that yesterday evening he met and thereafter he did
not see him.            This witness has further deposed that meanwhile he
received a phone call from the owner of the factory informing that one
person had seen the motorcycle of Ashok and therefore they went there
and inquired nearby areas. This witness has further deposed that upon
asked wife of Ashok she stated that yesterday at 4:00 O’clock he went
away by saying to wash his bike and did not return upto late night and
thereafter his phone came switched off. This witness has further deposed
that thereafter they inquired with the friends of Ashok viz., Ranjit @
Laden who stated that Dilip Jadav Kanani and his uncle Ranchhod Dayal
Kanani was accompanied and therefore they were also called. Witness
has further deposed that Jipin Meru Baraiya, Munno @ Mukesh Kanu
Kanani and Ashok Sursang Solanki were also called and inquiry was
made and thereafter they went to Police Station where the missing entry
was registered. This witness has further deposed that on the next day his
friend Dineshbhai and Jesingbhai son of his uncle called him informing
that dead body of Ashok was found from the place where the bike was
recovered and therefore they went and found one dead body in the ditch

                                     Page 9 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                             JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




of water. Police came there and dead body was identified of his nephew.
Witness has deposed that he gave complaint. This witness has further
deposed that Police called and informed him that one Ranchhod Dayal
and Hitesh @ Ganjro quarreled with his nephew for taking snacks and by
inflicting blows on his head caused his murder and threw his dead body
in the ditch of water. This witness has been cross-examined at length
where he admitted that he did not met Ranchhod prior to incident and he
had seen him at D-Division on 13 th and therefore he identified him. This
witness has admitted that in the complaint dated 14/10/2014 he did not
give name of accused No.2 – Hitesh and he never met him. Witness has
also admitted that he used to frequently visit residence of Ashok; but was
not in contact with his any of the friend.


         Thus, the evidence of this witness does not inspire any confidence
to show the actual involvement of the accused in commission of the
crime. This witness himself has admitted that Police called and informed
him about the accused committed murder of his nephew and he did not
even give name of org. accused No.2. It also appears from the evidence
of this witness that this witness has no personal knowledge about
occurrence of the incident and on the basis of hearsay the complaint was
registered.


12.      PW 14 – Ranjitbhai Natubhai Khokhani, has been examined at
Exh.43. This witness has deposed in his testimony that he was working in
the diamond factory with Dilipbhai, Ashokbhai Sodhi, Munno and
Jipinbhai. This witness has deposed in his testimony that he stated the
facts of the occurrence of the incident before the Police which he came to
know from hearsay. He also deposed that he came to know that deceased
– Ashok was killed by Ranchhod and Hitesh. This witness has deposed
that he knew Ranchhodbhai; but did not know Hiteshbhai and did not see

                                  Page 10 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




him earlier. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that earlier at
the time of filing of the complaint, his name was shown as suspect and
thereafter he was shown as witness and this witness has also deposed that
facts stated by him was known to him from hearsay.


13.      PW No.15 – Ashokbhai Sursangbhai Solanki is examined at
Exh.44. Witness has not supported the case of prosecution and therefore
he was declared hostile.


14.      PW No.16 – Jipinbhai Merubhai Baraiya is examined at Exh.46.
This witness has deposed in his testimony that he was called at the Police
Station and as per the information he came to know, he stated it before
the Police. This witness has deposed that he did not know accused No.2
and therefore unable to identify him. From the evidence of this witness, it
appears that he does not have any personal knowledge or information and
his evidence can be said to be hearsay evidence and therefore does not
inspire any confidence.


15.      PW No.17 – Budhabhai Ganeshbhai Parmar is examined at Exh.47.
This witness has deposed in his testimony that he came to know about the
occurrence of the incident and this witness also does not have any
personal information about the occurrence of the incident. This witness is
also not known to accused No.2 – Hitesh. As stated earlier, this witness
also does not have any personal knowledge or information and his
evidence can be said to be hearsay evidence and therefore does not
inspire any confidence.


16.      PW No.18 – Bhaveshbhai Gohel is examined at Exh.48. This
witness has lastly seen the deceased with the accused however the
witness has not supported the case of prosecution, he was declared

                                Page 11 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                                JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




hostile.


17.      PW No.19 – Bhanuben Ashokbhai Vegad, wife of the deceased is
examined at Exh.49. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that
she does not have any personal information and there was no dispute of
any nature of her husband with anyone. This witness has deposed that
she has not seen accused No.2 and does not identify him.


18.      Thus, as can be seen from the evidence of the above witnesses
upon which the heavy reliance has been placed by the learned Sessions
Court to record the conviction of the appellants-accused, no direct
evidence to link the accused with the crime in question emerged and the
persons who were shown to be suspect later on shown as witness. None
of the above witnesses have any personal knowledge or information about
the occurrence of the incident. The learned Sessions Judge has materially
erred in relying upon the evidence of these witness as the involvement of
the appellants – accused is not proved in commission of the crime in
question from the evidence of these witnesses.


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 to notice such aspect as to whether
any such motive is proved by the prosecution as alleged since the prime
witness PW 24 who had lastly seen the deceased alive was for the reasons
known to the prosecution was not examined, as also PW No.18 has not
supported the case of prosecution and declared hostile. Likewise, none of
the witnesses have any personal information / knowledge about the
occurrence of the incident and failed to name to the accused persons,

                                    Page 12 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                             JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




more particularly, accused No.2 and identify him before the Court and
thus the entire story of the prosecution comes under the shadow of doubt.


20.      In view of the details discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, in
consonance with the material placed for consideration as relied upon by
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, 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. 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 vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh [(2023) 6 SCC 399] 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.

                                 Page 13 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




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: (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
of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not

                                      Page 14 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




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.      Furthermore, the prosecution has though shown number of
witnesses in the charge-sheet, but for the reasons best known to the
prosecution has not examined certain witnesses, more particularly, PW
No.24, who seems to have been portrayed as prime witness to link the
chain of circumstance. However, as noted above, for the reasons best
known to the prosecution, this witness has not been examined; nor any
care seems to have been taken to see the reasons behind non-examination
of the witness which ultimately proves fatal to the case of prosecution. It
also appears from the record that prosecution has not proved the place of
occurrence and no such call details either of the deceased or the suspect
to link the accused with the crime has been called for or examined by the
prosecution. It also appears from the record that there is no eyewitness to
the incident and based on suspicion, the complainant lodged an FIR
against the present appellants, and the arrest was made based on
suspicion; there was no concrete material against the appellants to prove
their involvement in the commission of crime and merely on the
suspicion their involvement was tried to have been shown which cannot
take the place of evidence.


24.      From the evidence so produced by the prosecution and as
examined by the learned Sessions Court, the prosecution does not appear
to be successful in proving its case which is based on circumstantial
evidence on last seen together theory as the person who had last seen the
accused with the deceased declared hostile and though it was the case of

                                Page 15 of 16
      R/CR.A/478/2017                                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




circumstantial evidence the prosecution has not proved any motive
behind the commission of crime and therefore the evidence of the
witnesses who have no personal knowledge or information about the
commission of crime have deposed before the court on hearsay and
therefore, their evidence would not be helpful to the prosecution to prove
its case beyond all reasonable doubt.


25.       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 appeals deserve to be allowed and are
accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.52 of 2015 for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set
aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.


25.1 The appellants are ordered to be set at liberty, forthwith, if not
required in any other case.


25.2 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 10/02/2026 11:49:50




                                                     Page 16 of 16