STATE OF GUJARATversusBHALABHAI CHHATRABHAI BARIYA

     R/CR.A/68/2002                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                   R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 68 of 2002
                                 With
            R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 513 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
                      BHALABHAI CHHATRABHAI BARIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR VISHAL VICCHI FOR MR HARDIK H DAVE(6295) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

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

                                Date : 11/02/2026

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



1.     Here is the Appeal filed by the Stat against the judgment and
order of acquittal and the Revision Application, challenging the
judgment of acquittal at the instance of original complainant.

2.     We have heard learned APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya for the State,
learned counsel Mr.Vishal Vicchi for learned counsel Mr.Hardik Dave,
appearing for and on behalf of the respondents accused and Ms.Kruti

                                    Page 1 of 10
     R/CR.A/68/2002                             JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




Shah, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist – original
complainant.

3.     Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge at Godhra passed in Sessions Case
No.99 of 1999, dated 31.08.2001, acquitting the respondents from the
offence under Sections 302, 506(2), 504, read with Sections 34 and
114 of the IPC, the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378
of the Cr.P.C, whereas the original complainant being aggrieved with
the order of the acquittal filed a revision against the impugned
judgment and both are taken up together and being disposed of by this
common judgment.

4.     Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal as well as
Revision are that, the offence of murder being registered with Rajgadh
Police Station being II-C.R.No.43 of 1998 against the three accused
viz. Bhalabhai Chhatrabhai, Chhatrabhai Dabhai and Bachchubhai
Chhatrabhai. On the issue of possession of agricultural land, the
deceased Chemabhai came to be assaulted by the accused when he was
cultivating his disputed farm. According to the prosecution case, on
01.09.1998, in the afternoon, the deceased Chemabhai was busy in his
agricultural farm situated at Village Jingri, Tal.: Gogambha, and at that
time, the accused no.2 Chhatrabhai Dabhi came there and objected for
the agricultural activities allegedly undertaken by the deceased and
also gave filthy abuses to the deceased. Meanwhile, the accused no.1
Bhalabhai Chhatrabhai who happened to be a son of accused no.2
came with stick in his hand and gave a blow on the right hand of the


                                Page 2 of 10
       R/CR.A/68/2002                                JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




deceased and second blow on the head of the deceased and also on the
back of the deceased. It is further alleged that accused nos.2 and 3 gave
a fisticuffs blows        and instigated accused no.1. The incident was
witnessed by the wife of the deceased Reshmaben as she was present
in the field and due to her hue and cry, the persons from the vicinity
viz.      Manubhai      Dolabhai,   Mohanbhai      Nanabhai,       Gordhanbhai
Bhatibhai, Anubhai Chemabhai and Savitaben Pappibhai and others
came for rescue and before they could reach there, the accused ran
away from the field. The deceased Chemabhai was taken to the
Gogambha Government Dispensary and due to non-availability of
doctor, he was taken to the Ranjitnagar Dispensary and before he could
reach, he succumbed to his injuries. The FIR of the incident came to be
registered with Rajgadh Police Station, allegedly lodged by eyewitness
Rashmaben. The investigation was entrusted to the PSI Bhagvanbhai
Ahir – PW;8. After completion of investigation of the case,                       the
chargesheet came to be filed against the accused and case was
committed to the Sessions Court at Godhra, Panchmahal. After due
framing of the charge and upon the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial
commenced.

5.       In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as
many as 9 witnesses and relied upon 11 documentary evidence.


     Oral evidence - 9
     PW 1 – Exh.12          Anupbhai Chemabhai
     PW 2 – Exh.14          Savitaben Pappibhai
     PW 3 – Exh.15          Gordhanbhai Bhattibhai
     PW 4 – Exh.16          Manubhai Dolabhai



                                    Page 3 of 10
     R/CR.A/68/2002                              JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




     PW 5 – Exh.17        Kalsinh Rathva, Circle inspector
     PW 6 – Exh.20        Koyabhai Parmar, PSO
     PW 7 – Exh.23        Andrabhai Devabhai, panch witness
     PW 8 – Exh.27        Bhagwanbhai Aahir, IO
     PW 9 – Exh.30        Bhagwatsinh Itare, PM doctor

     Documentary evidence - 11
      Exh.21    Complaint
      Exh.6     Police yadi to medical officer for treatment
      Exh.7     Inquest yadi
      Exh.22    Inquest panchnama
      Exh.24    Panchnama of place of offence
      Exh.25    Panchnama of recovery of weapon
      Exh.8     Panchnama of recovery of clothes from deceased
      Exh.9     Police report for examination of body of deceased
      Exh.10    PM yadi
      Exh.31    PM Note
      Exh.12    Map of place of offence


6.     After closure of the prosecution evidence, the respondents
accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to which
they stated that they were innocent of all charges levelled against them
and they have been falsely implicated due to land dispute.

7.     Though opportunity was extended, no evidence in the defence
being tendered from the side of the respondents accused.

8.     Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties and upon
appreciation of the evidence, held that the prosecution miserably failed
to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
The learned Trial Court after analysis of the evidence of eyewitnesses
held and observed that the witnesses came later on at the place of the
incident and their presence at the place witnessing the incident are



                                 Page 4 of 10
      R/CR.A/68/2002                                JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




doubtful and does not inspire confidence.

9.        In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this acquittal
appeal has been preferred by the State and the Revision at the instance
of original complainant.

10.     Oral Evidence adduced by the prosecution:

10.1 Dr.Bhagvatsinh Etare (PW:9): This witness being a medical
officer of the Government Hospital, Halol conducted postmortem on
the body of the deceased and noticed the following external and
internal injuries:
        External Injuries:
        (i)      Abrasion on the right shoulder (1.2 x 1.2)
        (ii)     Fracture of right upper arm and swelling on right side of
        parietal region;
        (iii) Fracture of right humerus;


        Internal Injuries:

        (i)      Fracture in the parietal region and liniar fracture in the
        brain.


        According to the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was
neurogenic shock due to head injuries and the external and internal
injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and
the said injuries could be possible by the stick.



                                    Page 5 of 10
    R/CR.A/68/2002                              JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




10.2 Anopbhai Chemabhai (PW:1): This witness is the son of the
deceased and according to his version, after hearing the hue and cry of
her mother Reshmaben, he reached at the farm and after reaching at the
farm, he noticed that his father Chemabhai was lying on the floor. The
witness in his chief examination has stated that when he about to reach
at the farm, he saw that the accused were running away. The FIR filed
by wife of the deceased being referred in the evidence of this witness
because pending the trial, the witness Reshmaben has passed away.

10.3 Savitaben (PW:2):      This witness is the sister in law of the
deceased and at the relevant time, she was on the way to fetch the
water from the well and while passing near the farm where the incident
occurred, she had witnessed the incident.

10.4 Manubhai Dholabhai (PW:4): This witness is the neighbour of
the deceased and at the relevant time, after hearing the screaming of
Reshmaben, wife of the deceased, the witness rushed to the filed where
the incident occurred and he saw the accused who were running away
from the field.

10.5 Bhagvanbhai Koyabhai (PW:8): This witness being PSI of the
Rajgadh Police Station had investigated the case and after arrest of the
accused, he filed the chargesheet against them. So far as the
investigation part is concerned, there is no as such serious issue raised
by defence side and therefore, the entire deposition does not require to
be referred herein.




                                Page 6 of 10
      R/CR.A/68/2002                           JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




11.     Mr.Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the appellant – State and Ms.Kruti Shah, appearing for
the original complainant, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal,
have 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 had seen the
accused running away after injuring the deceased from the distance of
about 300 ft. And therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the ocular
evidence of these witnesses. Therefore, there being unimpeachable and
reliable ocular evidence, to prove the charge against the accused, the
Trial Court committed a serious error in law in brushing aside the
evidence on frivolous grounds without any basis or material.


12.     In such circumstances, as referred above, it has been submitted
that while acquitting the respondents-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 7 of 10
      R/CR.A/68/2002                            JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




13.     Mr.Vishal Vicchi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
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. In the facts of
the present case, the principal accused Bhalabhai Chhatrabhai who had
caused a fatal injuries died during the pendency of the appeal and so
far as accused nos.2 and 3 are concerned, there are no serious
allegations made against them about causing fatal injuries and
considering the peculiar facts of the case, the common intention on the
part of the accused nos.2 and 3 having not been established and proved
and therefore, for the offence of murder, as such there is no evidence
against the respondents accused.

14.     In such circumstances, referred to above, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents accused, has submitted that the Trial
Court while discarding the oral evidence has assigned cogent and
sufficient reasons while acquitting the accused and therefore, the
judgment of acquittal passed is well reasoned, legally sustainable and
does not suffer any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

15.       Before proceeding to address the rival submissions, we would
like to place on record the scope of interference in an appeal against
the acquittal and when the same is justified. In exceptional cases,
where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under
appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the
judgment of acquittal. The Appellate Court should bare in mind the


                                Page 8 of 10
      R/CR.A/68/2002                            JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




presence of innocence of the accused and further that, the trial Court’s
acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a
routine manner, where the other view of possible should be avoided,
unless there are reasons for interference.

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

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

18.     In the facts of the present case, the sole eyewitness Reshmaben
who had lodged the FIR, died before recording her evidence and her
evidence could not be recorded. It is also required to be noted that the
principal accused no.1 Bhalabhai Chhatrabhai who had caused a fatal
injury and the deceased died during the pendency of the appeal and the
appeal qua him stands abated. So far role attributed to the accused
nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they gave fisticuffs blows and instigated the
principal accused no.1. Admittedly, the witnesses examined by the
prosecution came at the place after hearing the shouting of the wife of
the deceased Reshmaben and according to their version, as stated in the
chief examination that they saw the accused while running away from
the spot. We have carefully examined the version of the eyewitnesses
and upon careful examination of their evidence, we are of the view that
there is no evidence to prove that the act of the principal accused no.1
and the respondents accused being done in furtherance of the common



                                Page 9 of 10
           R/CR.A/68/2002                                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




    intention of all and as such, the prosecution has failed to prove the
    overt act attributed on the part of the accused nos.2 and 3 and the
    version of the witnesses is not sufficient to prove that the respondents
    accused caused injuries to the deceased as alleged. In such
    circumstances, in absence of any independent evidence, the testimonies
    of witnesses as referred above, which do not inspire confidence about
    their presence and witnessing the incident, the prosecution failed to
    prove the charge of murder against the accused beyond reasonable
    doubt. Thus, therefore, the view of the Trial Court as to the credibility
    of the witnesses is possible and plausible view and the Trial Court
    while analyzing the evidence has assigned cogent and sound reasons
    and therefore, findings of acquittal are reasonable and based on the
    evidence on record and we do not find any perversity in the findings of
    acquittal so as to interfere. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Trial
    Court was justified in acquitting the accused and we are in complete
    agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of
    acquittal recorded by the Court below and hence finds no reason to
    interfere with the same.


    19.       With the observations as aforesaid, the appeal as well as revision
    application are 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)
    Rakesh


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: RAKESH MAHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC00950), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/02/2026 17:00:13
                                                         Page 10 of 10