STATE OF GUJARATversusRAFIQUE DADU DAL.

     R/CR.A/615/2001                           JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 615 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
                RAFIQUE DADU DAL. & ANR.
=========================================
Appearance:
MR J K SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1,2
=========================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                           Date : 11/02/2026

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


1.      Feeling aggrieved and dissatis8ed with the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Junagadh in the Sessions Case No. 130/1997 for the o@ences
punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 114 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).


2.      The brief facts leading to the 8ling of the present appeal are
as under:


                                Page 1 of 8
   R/CR.A/615/2001                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




2.1.    As per the prosecution case, the victim Roshanben w/o Vali
Mohammad Dal has died due to extensive burn injuries. There was
a family dispute inasmuch as the victim was not on speaking terms
with her sister-in-law (jethani, wife of accused No.2 Ra8k).
According to the prosecution, on 24-3-1997 at around 9:00 a.m. in
Maftiyapara, Manavadar, the victim was set on 8re. Information
was received and she was taken to Junagadh Civil Hospital. Upon
seeing her burnt condition, the post-mortem report by the doctor,
the treatment records, etc., and conducting further inquiry, burnt
and half-burnt pieces of clothes, a half-burnt kerosene can, a
matchbox, plastic bucket showing burn marks, kerosene smell in
the bathroom (chokdi) of the northern room, and other articles
were found at the scene in the house under the Deli (veranda) in
Maftiyapara, Manavadar.


2.2.    Taking       all     these      circumstances          into      account,          the
prosecution's case emerged as the accused persons had, on 24-3-
1997 at around 9:00 a.m. in the house at Maftiyapara, Manavadar,
conspired      to     murder       Roshanben.          They     hatched       an    illegal
conspiracy with the common intention to commit the murder. In
pursuance       of    that       common      intention,       when      the     deceased
Roshanben had gone into the bathroom (chokdi) to bathe as
instructed by her mother-in-law (accused No.4 Aayeshaben), the
accused No.4 caught hold of her hands, and accused No.2 poured
kerosene from a can over her body, lit a matchstick and set her
ablaze. They then took her to Junagadh Civil Hospital where she
eventually succumbed to the burn injuries during treatment. The
prosecution alleged that the accused assisted and abetted each
other    in   committing          the   o@ence         and    attempted       to   screen
themselves       by        not   immediately          disclosing      the   true     facts.
Accordingly, the prosecution has presented its case and framed



                                        Page 2 of 8
     R/CR.A/615/2001                               JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




charges       against   the   accused    persons   in   this   manner.      The
Manavadar Police completed the investigation of this o@ence and
8led the chargesheet against the accused persons under Sections
302, 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Manavadar committed
the case to the Sessions court.



3.      On conclusion of evidence, the Sessions Court put various
incriminating circumstances to the respondent-accused persons
under Section 313 of the Code. The respondent-accused persons
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 dying
declarations identi8es the accused and the medical evidence fully
corroborates the ocular account. He therefore prays for allowing
the appeal.



6.      The incident is said to have occurred on 24-3-1997 at around
9:00 a.m. in the bathroom (chokdi) of the northern room in the
house at Maftiyapara, Manavadar. No independent eyewitness has
been examined who claims to have seen the actual act of pouring
kerosene and setting the victim on 8re. The prosecution relies
entirely on the two dying declarations- complaint at Exh. 37 and
Exh. 39, the scene of o@ence panchnama showing burnt clothes



                                   Page 3 of 8
     R/CR.A/615/2001                             JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




pieces, half-burnt kerosene can, matchbox and kerosene smell in
the bathroom, the medical evidence of burn injuries, and the
alleged motive of the victim not speaking with her sister-in-law
(jethani). No direct ocular evidence linking the accused to the act
of setting 8re has been produced.



7.      The panch witnesses examined for the scene of o@ence
panchnama at Exh. 25 have supported the recovery of burnt and
half-burnt clothes pieces, a half-burnt kerosene can, a matchbox,
and plastic bucket showing burn marks from the bathroom area.
However, no independent witness from the neighbourhood or
locality has been examined to corroborate the occurrence inside
the house at the relevant time. The medical witnesses PW-5 Dr.
Tanrukh Govind at Exh. 30 and PW-8 Dr. Ashok Narharidas at Exh.
46 have clearly stated that the victim was never in a 8t mental
state or “clear state of mind” from the time of admission till her
death, remaining in shock and on glucose saline drips throughout.
Importantly, the two dying declarations at Exh. 37 and Exh. 39
contain material contradictions regarding the role of the accused,
the sequence of events, prior beating, and motive; one version
denies any cruelty from in-laws while the other alleges assault and
kerosene pouring. The panch witnesses for the panchnama
appeared consistent on seizure but the overall reliability is a@ected
by    the     absence   of   any   independent   corroboration       of       the
occurrence.


8.      A signi8cant weakness in the prosecution case is the
complete failure to prove that the victim Roshanben was in a 8t
condition to give a reliable dying declaration. Both doctors
treatment doctor as PW-8 Dr. Ashok Narharidas at Exh. 46 and
post-mortem doctor as PW-5 Dr. Tanrukh Govind at Exh. 30 have


                                   Page 4 of 8
     R/CR.A/615/2001                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




deposed that she remained in critical shock, semi-conscious, and
never in a position to make a clear, voluntary statement. No history
of how or by whom the burns were caused was given by the victim
to the 8rst examining Dr. Gondaliya. The 8rst police o@icer at the
hospital Head Constable R.J. Barot who met the victim was not
examined, and no statement from him was brought on record. No
neighbour or independent witness has been examined to prove
prior cruelty, dowry demand, or the presence of the accused in the
bathroom at the time. The alleged motive of mere non-speaking
with the jethani has been held insu@icient for such a grave o@ence,
and the victim and her husband were residing separately in a
rented room.


9.      Thus, the only circumstances sought to be proved are the two
contradictory dying declarations, the scene of o@ence panchnama
showing articles consistent with kerosene 8re in the bathroom, and
the medical evidence of extensive burns leading to death. However,
these remain unconnected to the guilt of the accused by way of
reliable       direct    evidence       or      corroboration.    The      chain       of
circumstantial evidence is broken at several vital links absence of
proof     of    8t     mental   state     for     dying   declarations,      material
contradictions          between the two statements, no independent
witness to the occurrence, unreliable motive, separate residence of
the victim couple, post-incident conduct of the accused including
accused No.4 also su@ering burns consistent with rescue attempt,
and failure to examine the 8rst police o@icer at the hospital. 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 by burns,
but the identity of the perpetrators and their role has not been
established.



                                        Page 5 of 8
      R/CR.A/615/2001                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




10.      It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal there is a
double presumption in favour of the accused. Unless the 8ndings 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 the guilt of the accused through
reliable dying declarations or unbroken chain of circumstances
pointing solely to their guilt 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 8eld after considering various earlier
judgments and held as below: -


                 “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



                                      Page 6 of 8
      R/CR.A/615/2001                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




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



12.      This Court may also refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), 2023 INSC 924, wherein it has been reiterated that the
primary requirement for all dying declarations is that they should
be voluntary and reliable and that such statements should be made
in a 8t state of mind.


13.      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;



                                      Page 7 of 8
      R/CR.A/615/2001                                                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




          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.”




14.       In the light of the above discussion and the settled legal
position, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
respondent-accused                         persons              beyond             reasonable                 doubt.           The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 02-05-2001
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in the
Sessions Case No. 130/1997 does not call for any interference.


15.       The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The judgment and order of acquittal is con8rmed. 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 11/02/2026 12:57:52




                                                           Page 8 of 8