STATE OF GUJARATversusDIVYAKANT ARJUNBHAI PARMAR

      R/CR.A/599/2001                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599 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
                         DIVYAKANT ARJUNBHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Appellant
MR ANIL S DAVE(242) for the Respondent
MR KAMEN N SHUKLA(2930) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

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

                                 Date : 28/01/2026

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

1.     Here is the Appeal by the State against the judgment and order
       of acquittal.


2.     Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the
       learned Sessions Judge, Godhra at Panchmahal, passed in
       Sessions Case No.67 of 2000, dated 10.07.2001, acquitting the



                                     Page 1 of 8
     R/CR.A/599/2001                            JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




      respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323
      of the Indian Penal Code, the State has preferred instant appeal
      under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.


3.    This Court has heard Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional
      Public Prosecutor and learned advocates Mr. Anil S. Dave, for
      the respective parties.


4.    Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, four
      accused – the respondent accused Divyakant Parmar, was tried
      and prosecuted for the offence of murder. The respondent
      accused at the time of incident was serving as a Police Sub-
      Inspector, posted at Fatehpura Police Station, Dahod. On
      29.01.2000, at about 8-30 pm, the respondent accused and two
      constables were busy with the vehicle checking at the bus stand
      of Sukhsar and at that time, two Rajasthan passing tractors
      allegedly driven by PW-3 Madansinh Ugamsinh and others
      were intercepted by the police officials and at that time,
      according to prosecution case, the respondent accused assaulted
      PW-3 complainant Madansinh and deceased Manojarsinh, who
      later on came to the rescue of the complainant. The deceased
      and others went to village Vasiyafoi with their tractors for
      leveling of the farming land and while returning back, the
      alleged incident being occurred. It is the case of the prosecution
      that, the respondent accused caused abdominal injury with the



                                Page 2 of 8
     R/CR.A/599/2001                          JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




      stick and also slapped the deceased, as a result, his lever was
      ruptured and within 3 to 4 hours of the incident, he succumbed
      to his injuries. The FIR came to be lodged with Santrampur
      Police Station and then it transferred to jurisdictional police
      station i.e. Fatehpura, Dahod. The respondent accused came to
      be arrested and upon due investigation, the chargesheet against
      him was being filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate and
      same was committed to the Court of Sessions at Dahod.


5.    The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302,
      323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused to which, he
      pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.


6.    In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as
      many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents :
     Oral evidence

      PW 1 – Exh.8   Dr. Mohitkumar Rajnikant Mahajan
      PW 2 – Exh.9   Dr. Lalsinh Gulalsinh Ravat
      PW 3 – Exh.11  Madansinh Ugamsinh, Complainant
      PW 4 – Exh.15  Kalyansinh Harisinh Chouhan
      PW 5 – Exh.16  Babusinh Harisinh Chouhan
      PW 6 – Exh.18  Chetabhai Vichiyabhai Damor
      PW 7 – Exh.26  Vinodchandan Mohanlal
      PW 8 – Exh.27  Dr. Rameshchandra Harjivanbhai
                     Shrimadi
      PW 9 – Exh.29 R.M. Rathod, PSI
      PW 10 – Exh.30 R.M. Bhabhor, Circle police inspector



                                Page 3 of 8
     R/CR.A/599/2001                                JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




     Documentary evidence

      Exh.10           PM note
      Exh.12           Complaint
      Exh.19           Panchnama of place of offence
      Exh.20           Panchnama of state of body of accused
      Exh.21           Panchnama of clothes recovered from deceased
                       body
      Exh.22           Yadi to executive magistrate for Inquest
      Exh.23           Inquest panchnama
      Exh.24           Yadi to medical officer for medical examination
      Exh.25           Police report
      Exh.28           Injury certificate
      Exh.32           Map of place of incident

7.    On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded further
      statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the
      Code, wherein, he claimed his innocence and by submitting
      written statement, he pleaded that, due to political influence, he
      has been falsely implicated in the offence and as such, due to
      accidental injuries, the deceased has died.


8.    The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating and examining
      the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the accused
      herein for the offences with which he was charged, on the
      ground that, the prosecution measurably failed to prove that the
      death was homicidal and reasons for the conclusion are that, the
      complainant and other eye-witnesses, have not disclosed in their
      police statement that the abdominal injuries being caused by the
      respondent accused and considering this contradiction and


                                      Page 4 of 8
     R/CR.A/599/2001                           JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




      improvement allegedly made by the witnesses, the trial Court
      did not acted upon the oral testimony of the witnesses.


9.    Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
      appearing for the appellant – State assailing the judgment and
      order of acquittal, has submitted that the findings of acquittal
      are contrary to law and evidence on record and the findings
      recorded are palpably erroneous and based on the irrelevant
      material. The witnesses have categorically stated that the
      respondent accused while checking the vehicles assaulted the
      deceased and others and the said version got corroboration from
      the medical evidence as there was rupture of lever and it could
      be possible by the blunt substance.


10. In such circumstances, as referred above, it has been submitted
      that while acquitting the respondent accused, the trial Court has
      discarded and ignored the truthful, reliable and acceptable
      evidence and as such, no cogent reasons being assigned while
      discarding such evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the
      conclusion of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is contrary
      to the evidence on record and upon erroneous understanding of
      law. Thus, it is prayed that the prosecution has succeeded in
      proving the charge against the respondents accused and the
      judgment and order of acquittal be set aside and accused may be
      convicted and sentenced for the offence as referred above.



                                Page 5 of 8
   R/CR.A/599/2001                           JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




11. Mr. Anil S. Dave, learned advocate           appearing for the
    respondent accused has submitted that the High Court in a case
    of Appeal against the acquittal, can interfere only when there
    are compelling substantial reasons for doing so and more
    particularly, the findings are without reasons and unreasonable
    and contrary to the evidence. The respondent accused is facing
    the charge of murder and it is obligatory on the part of the
    prosecution to prove that the death was homicidal in nature.
    According to charge and evidence, the respondent accused had
    slapped the deceased and given a blow a stick blow on the
    thigh. The witnesses later on changed their version as per the
    medical evidence and by improvising their version, the case was
    set up that, the respondent accused gave a stick blow on the
    abdominal part of the deceased and the said facts did not have
    disclosed at the earlier point of time before the police when
    their statement under Section 161 were recorded. Thus, the
    material contradiction and improvement discredit the reliability
    of the witnesses and the trial Court has rightly concluded that
    the death was not homicidal in nature.


12. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned counsel
    appearing for the respondents accused, has submitted that the
    Trial Court while discarding the evidence of oral testimonies of
    the witnesses have assigned cogent and sufficient reasons while
    acquitting the accused and therefore, the judgment of acquittal



                              Page 6 of 8
   R/CR.A/599/2001                            JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




    passed is well reasoned, legally sustainable and does not suffer
    any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.


13. In the present case the issue falls for our consideration as to
    whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused?


14. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary
    evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the
    Trial Court.


15. In the present case, the medical evidence is not in dispute and
    therefore, it is proved and established that, the deceased was
    died due to rupture of lever as there were 3 tear on the lever. So
    far as, oral evidence of eye-witnesses are concerned, the
    complainant PW-3 Madansinh Ugamsinh, PW-4 Kalyansinh
    Chauhan, PW-5 Babusinh Chauhan have categorically stated
    that, the respondent accused while intercepting the tractors,
    assaulted the deceased and gave a stick blow on his abdomen.
    There is no dispute about the presence of the respondent
    accused at the place of occurrence and admittedly, the deceased
    and eye-witnesses were returning back with their vehicles –
    tractors after completion of their work. We have carefully
    examined the oral evidence. The IO – PW-9 has admitted in his
    deposition that, the witnesses did not have disclosed in their
    police statement about abdominal injuries being caused by the



                              Page 7 of 8
        R/CR.A/599/2001                                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




          respondent               accused.            In       our         opinion,            these         material
          contradictions and improvements would fatal to the case of the
          prosecution, because, the substantial contradiction before the
          Court and in the police statement, would lead to the conclusion
          that, the evidence of the eye-witnesses cannot be relied upon
          and on such kind of evidence, the accused cannot be convicted
          which is contradictory and not reliable.


 16. In the result, we do not find any perversity in the impugned
          judgment as the trial Court after going through the entire
          evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the injuries
          sustained by the deceased is not correlated with the role
          attributable to present respondent herein.


 17. With the observations as aforesaid, the appeal is accordingly
          dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the R & P to
          the Trial Court. Bail bonds are cancelled, if any, and surety is
          discharged.


                                                                                              (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 29/01/2026 11:27:19




                                                        Page 8 of 8