STATE OF GUJARATversusKANAKSINH @ KANUBHAI GANPATSINH PARMAR

     R/CR.A/550/2001                           JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 550 of 2001

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

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

=========================================
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
                           Versus
   KANAKSINH @ KANUBHAI GANPATSINH PARMAR & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance:
MR. KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. NEEL P. KANABAR(16614) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
=========================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                           Date : 28/01/2026

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


1.      Feeling aggrieved and dissatis7ed with the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Godhra in the Sessions Case no. 41 of 1994 for the o?ences
punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State has preferred the
present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).




                                Page 1 of 8
     R/CR.A/550/2001                            JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




2.      The brief facts leading to the 7ling of the present appeal are
as under:


2.1. As per the prosecution case, the complainant’s son, Dolatsinh,
has died. Earlier, the father of the accused Kanubhai, Ganpatsinh,
was murdered, and there was enmity between the two families
(complainant and accused) in that regard. According to the
prosecution, on 1/12/1993, the complainant received information
that his son had been murdered around 10:00 a.m. near Saiyedpura
Patia. He therefore went there. Upon seeing the condition of the
body, the post-mortem report by the doctor, etc., and conducting
further inquiry, blood stains, drag marks of the body, one chappal
(slipper) of the deceased, etc., were found near the road in front of
the National Petrochem Factory in the vicinity of Vasedi village,
under a grove of Nilgiri trees.


2.2. Taking all these circumstances into account, the prosecution's
case emerged as the accused persons had, sometime after 22:30
hours on or about 30/11/1993 and before 10:30 a.m. on 01/12/1993,
conspired at a tyre shop near the three roads in Vasaka village to
murder Dolatsinh. They hatched an illegal conspiracy with the
common intention to commit the murder. In pursuance of that
common intention, when the deceased Dolatsinh was going from
Halol to Baska, the accused persons assaulted him near Vasedi
village, in front of the National Chem Factory, in the Nilgiri grove,
using sticks (danda), iron pipes, etc. They strangulated him by
tying a rope around his neck, took the body in a rickshaw bearing
No. GJ-17-T-1672, dumped it on the road near Saiyedpura Patia,
and destroyed evidence to make it appear as if death had occurred
due to a motor accident. In committing the said o?ence, the
accused persons assisted and abetted each other. Accordingly, the



                                  Page 2 of 8
     R/CR.A/550/2001                         JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




prosecution has presented its case and framed charges against the
accused persons in this manner. The Halol Police completed the
investigation of this o?ence and 7led the charge sheet against the
accused persons under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with Section
34 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at
Halol.


3.      On conclusion of evidence, the Sessions Court put various
incriminating circumstances to the respondent-accused under
Section 313 of the Code. The respondent-accused denied all
allegations and claimed to be innocent. After hearing both sides,
the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-accused.


4.      We have heard learned APP for the State and examined the
oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Sessions Court.


5.      Learned APP submits that the impugned order of acquittal is
required to be set aside because the evidence of the injured
witness identi7es the accused in Court and the medical evidence
fully corroborates the ocular account. He therefore prays for
allowing the appeal.


6.      The incident is said to have occurred between the night of
30/11/1993 after 22:30 hours and the morning of 1/12/1993 before
10:30 a.m. in a grove of Nilgiri trees near Vasedi village. No
eyewitness has been examined who claims to have seen the actual
assault or the dragging of the body. The prosecution relies entirely
on circumstantial evidence, including alleged recovery of weapons
at the instance of the accused, blood stained soil and drag marks at
the scene, one chappal of the deceased, and certain seizures from
the rickshaw. No direct evidence linking the accused to the act of



                               Page 3 of 8
     R/CR.A/550/2001                                JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




murder has been produced.


7.      The      panch   witnesses     examined    for   scene     of   o?ence
panchnama, recovery of blood soaked soil, drag marks, and chappal
have either turned hostile in part or failed to inspire con7dence.
Importantly, the blood samples collected from the scene and sent
to the FSL were never proved through any FSL report to be human
blood, let alone the blood of the deceased. Similarly, the panchas
for recovery of muddamal weapons sticks, iron pipes from the
accused persons gave inconsistent versions in examination-in-chief
and cross-examination. Some panchas supported the recovery of
articles handed over by the accused, but no inculpatory statement
or confession by the accused in their presence could be accepted,
as cross-examination revealed police presence and contradictions
among the panchas themselves. Several panch witnesses appeared
over-enthusiastic and unreliable, with one panch supporting while
another contradicting on material facts.


8.      A signi7cant weakness in the prosecution case is the
complete failure to prove that the blood stains found at the scene,
on the seized chappal, on clothes of the accused, or in the rickshaw
were human blood or belonged to the deceased Dolatsinh. The FSL
report, if any, was not proved or placed on record. No last seen
together evidence has been established showing the deceased
being taken by or with the accused to the grove. No independent
witness has corroborated that the accused were present at or near
the scene at the relevant time. The panchnama of the house of
accused Kanubhai allegedly standing at his house has been
rendered doubtful due to contradictions between panch witnesses,
the barking of a dog at a certain point, the house being locked, and
the name board being visible facts which render the said



                                     Page 4 of 8
      R/CR.A/550/2001                            JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




panchnama unreliable.


9.       Thus, the only circumstances sought to be proved are the
recovery of certain articles shown by the accused and the existence
of blood stains and drag marks at the scene. However, these
remain unconnected to the deceased by way of serological or
forensic evidence. The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken at
several vital links absence of proof of deceased's blood, unreliable
and contradictory panch witnesses, no last seen evidence, no direct
or ocular account, and failure to establish conscious possession or
exclusive recovery implicating the accused in the murder itself. In
such circumstances, the Sessions Court rightly held that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable
doubt. The medical evidence establishes homicidal death, but the
identity of the perpetrators and their role has not been established.


10.      It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal there is a
double presumption in favour of the accused. Unless the 7ndings of
the Sessions Court are shown to be perverse, the appellate Court
will not interfere merely because another view is possible. The view
taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances
pointing solely to the guilt of the accused is not only a possible
view but the only reasonable view on the evidence on record.



11.      At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of
Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471] encapsulated the legal
position covering the 7eld after considering various earlier
judgments and held as below: -




                                  Page 5 of 8
R/CR.A/550/2001                                JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




           “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court
           culled out the following general principles regarding the
           powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
           against an order acquittal in the following words:
           (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007)
           4 SCC 415]

           “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
           following general principles regarding powers of the
           appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an
           order of acquittal emerge:

           (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
           and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of
           acquittal is founded.

           (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation,
           restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
           appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
           conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

           (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling
           reasons”, “good and su4icient grounds”, “very strong
           circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”,
           etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an
           appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
           phraseologies are more in the nature of “5ourishes of
           language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court
           to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
           court to review the evidence and to come to its own
           conclusion.

           (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
           case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
           the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
           available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
           jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
           innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
           law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
           presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
           rea4irmed and strengthened by the trial court.

           (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of



                               Page 6 of 8
      R/CR.A/550/2001                                JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




                 the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
                 disturb the 7nding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”



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


         “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
         presumption of innocence;
         8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal,
         is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
         8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
         acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider
         whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which
         could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
         8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot
         overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view
         was also possible; and
         8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
         only if it comes to a 7nding that the only conclusion which can be
         recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt
         of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
         conclusion was possible.”



13.      In the light of the above discussion and the settled legal
position, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned
judgment and order of acquittal dated 31/03/2001 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra in Sessions Case
No.41/1994 does not call for any interference.



                                     Page 7 of 8
      R/CR.A/550/2001                                                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




14.        The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The judgment and order of acquittal is con7rmed. Records and
Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith.




                                                                                               (ILESH J. VORA,J)



                                                                                          (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 28/01/2026 13:19:05




                                                            Page 8 of 8