Holding

The conviction was set aside because the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence that excluded all reasonable hypotheses of the appellant’s innocence.

Summary

The appellant, Parulben Mahendrabhai Godani, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, for murder, grievous hurt, robbery, and criminal conspiracy based on Sections 302, 326, 394, 201, 120(B) IPC and Section 135 Gujarat Police Act. She appealed under Section 374 CrPC, contending that the prosecution’s case rested solely on circumstantial evidence that was incomplete and riddled with doubts, including unreliable CCTV footage, questionable forensic recoveries, and the possibility of other family members’ involvement. The High Court examined the chain of circumstances, the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, and the propriety of invoking Section 120(B) when only one accused was charged. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that reasonable hypotheses of innocence remained, the Court held the conviction unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted of all charges.

Issues considered

The prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Whether the chain of circumstances is complete and excludes any reasonable hypothesis of the appellant’s innocence.
Whether Section 120(B) IPC can be applied when only one person is charged.
Admissibility of CCTV footage under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether the recovery of the weapon and jewellery was properly proved.
The relevance of motive in a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the investigation suffered from selective prosecution rendering the trial unfair.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 209, s. 313, s. 374
Gujarat Police Acts. 135
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 65B(4)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120(B), s. 201, s. 302, s. 326, s. 394

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtconviction quashedcriminal conspiracySection 120B IPCCCTV admissibilityforensic evidencemotiveIndian Penal CodeGujarat Police ActCriminal Procedure

Judgment

R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 700 of
2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

=========================================
PARULBEN W/O MAHENDRABHAI RAMESHBHAI GODANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
MR ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI(5576) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR J K SHAH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 20/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 150/2016, whereby the
appellant – accused Parulben Mahendrabhai Godani has been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 394,
201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of
the Gujarat Police Act and sentenced accordingly, the appellant has
preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Page 1 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

2. The present case originates from Sessions Case No.
150/2016, heard before the learned District and Sessions Judge at
Surat. The sole accused, Parulben, wife of Mahendrabhai
Rameshbbhai Godani and resident of Flat No. C/504, Meghmalhar
Apartment, Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat, faced trial for offences
punishable under Sections 302, 326, 394, 201, 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The
proceedings stemmed from a chargesheet filed in Criminal Case
No. 28151/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Second
Court, Surat, following investigation into Sarthana Police Station I-
C.R. No. 18/2016, and the case was duly committed to the Sessions
Court as the offences were exclusively triable by it.

3. The prosecution's case, in detail, alleges that on 30/01/2016,
prior to 19:00 hours, at the matrimonial home located at Flat No.
C/504, Meghmalhar Residency, Sarthana, Surat, the accused
Parulben Mahendrabhai Godani, who was the sister-in-law of the
deceased Reshma Devendrabhai Godani, committed the offence out
of deep enmity. The deceased Reshma, having married Devendra
Rameshbbhai Godani on 09/02/2015 and residing in the same flat
with her husband, his elder brother Mahendrabhai (husband of the
accused), and the accused Parulben, had allegedly been repeatedly
taunting and reproaching the deceased for having previously taken
away her gold and silver jewellery. Harbouring a grudge due to
these repeated taunts, the accused, on the day of the incident,
waited for an opportune moment when the deceased had consumed
her afternoon meal and was resting asleep on the bed. The accused
then viciously assaulted the deceased by delivering multiple
forceful blows to her head with a wooden stick (dhoka), inflicting
grievous injuries that led to her murder. Not content with this, the
accused, who had brought a bottle of acid earlier that morning,

Page 2 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

proceeded to pour or splash the corrosive substance on the face
and body of the deceased, causing further severe burns.
Thereafter, the accused removed from the deceased's person the
American diamond-studded gold earrings weighing approximately 2
grams and valued at Rs. 6,000/-, along with a gold nose ring
weighing 0.1 gram and valued at Rs. 400/-, thereby committing
robbery of jewellery totalling Rs. 6,400/-. The initial narrative
provided to the family was that the deceased had consumed acid
herself, but upon the arrival of the complainant's side, observations
such as injury marks on the mouth, blackened face, burnt hands,
and suspicious burn and scratch marks on the accused's own hands
led to the belief that murder had been committed and evidence
tampered with, prompting the lodging of the complaint involving
elements of criminal conspiracy, false information, and violation of
the police commissioner's notification.

4. Following the registration of the FIR at Sarthana Police
Station as I-C.R. No. 18/2016 based on the complaint lodged by the
father of the deceased, the investigating officer meticulously
carried out the probe, which included recording statements of
material witnesses, preparing necessary panchnamas of the scene
of offence and physical condition of the body, collecting forensic
and medical evidence, and apprehending the accused who was
already in judicial custody. Upon concluding that sufficient prima
facie evidence existed against the accused Parulben, the
investigating officer submitted a chargesheet before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Second Court, Surat, whereupon the matter
was registered as Criminal Case No. 28151/2016. In compliance
with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, copies
of the chargesheet and accompanying documents were furnished to
the accused. Recognising that the offences alleged were not within

Page 3 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

its trial jurisdiction, the Magistrate's Court committed the case
under Section 209 CrPC to the District and Sessions Court, Surat,
where it was assigned Sessions Case No. 150/2016, and
subsequently transferred to the appropriate Sessions Court for full
trial and adjudication.

5. Upon the case being taken up for trial in the Sessions Court,
on 30/06/2017, charges were framed against the accused Parulben
under the aforementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code and
the Gujarat Police Act, marked as Exh. 08. The charges were
carefully read out and explained to the accused in the vernacular
language to ensure comprehension, following which she was
queried as to whether she admitted guilt or wished to stand trial.
The accused categorically denied the allegations, pleaded not
guilty, and expressed her intention to contest the case on merits,
leading to the recording of her plea as Exh. 09. Consequently, the
prosecution was called upon to lead evidence in support of the
charges, and the trial commenced with the examination of oral
witnesses and exhibition of documentary evidence. Upon closure of
the prosecution's evidence, the accused's further statement under
Section 313 CrPC would have been recorded, affording her an
opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing
against her, during which she would have maintained her
innocence and denied all adverse material.

6. To substantiate the grave charges levelled against the
accused and to bring her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the
prosecution has adduced comprehensive oral testimony from key
witnesses, including the complainant (father of the deceased),
family members present at the time of discovery, investigating
officers, medical experts, and other corroborative witnesses,

Page 4 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

alongside a substantial array of documentary evidence such as the
post-mortem report, forensic reports, panchnamas, seizure memos,
and medical papers, all aimed at establishing the chain of
circumstances pointing unequivocally to the culpability of the
accused in the commission of the offences.

7. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as

20 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents.

:Oral Evidences:
Sr. No. Name of Witness Page No.
1 P.W.No.1, Dr. Sandip Kalidas Raval 13
2 P.W.No.2, Nileshbhai Vinubhai Randholiya 19
3 P.W.No.3, Bharatbhai Chaturbhai Nathani 29
4 P.W.No.4, Hiteshbhai Mavjibhai Nakarani 33
5 P.W.No.5, Atulbhai Labhshankar Oza 35
6 P.W. No.6, Atulbhai Vinubhai Randholiya 37
7 P.W. No.7, Piyushbhai Vinodbhai Vadodariya 40
8 P.W. No.8, Khodidasbhai Arvindbhai Vora 44
9 P.W.No.9, Dr. Anand Chotubhai Patel 46
10 P.W.No.10, Dr. Nishben Vinodbhai Chandra 56
11 P.W.No.11, Chandubhai Jerambhai Nathani 60
12 P.W.No.12, Manjulaben Chandubhai Nathani 62
13 P.W.No.13, Kanchanben Ramjibhai Jiyani 64
14 P.W.No.14, Krishnaben Pratikbhai Kathrodiya 65
15 P.W.No.15, Dilipbhai Karsanbhai Savaliya 66
16 P.W.No.16, Vikasbhai Dineshbhai Vaghela 70
17 P.W.No.17, Kanubhai Mahadevbhai Chaudhary 73
18 P.W.No.18, Ganpatbhai Bhadarsingh Barad 85
19 P.W.No.19, Vinodchandra Aatmarambhai Patel 87
20 P.W.No.20, Atulkumar Kantilal patel 93

Page 5 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

:Documentary Evidences:
Ex.
Name of Exhibit Page No.
No.
1 Inquest Panchnama 10
2 Police Yadi for P.M. Note 14
3 P.M. Note 15
4 Panchnama of crime scene 20
5 Panch Slip 21 to 27
6 Panch Slip 30
7 Discovery Panchnama Dt. 02/02/2016 31
8 Discovery Panchnama Dt. 03/02/2016 34
9 Panch Slip 36
10 Accused's Arrest Panchnama 38
11 CCTV footage from DVD Panchnama 41
12 Accused Parulben’s Medical Examination Police List 47
13 Accused Parulben’s Medical Certificate 49
Police List of medical examination of suspected
14 50
accused Devendrabhai and Mahendrabhai
15 Devendrabhai MLC Case paper 51
16 Devendrabhai’s medical cerificate 52
17 Mahendrabhai MLC Case paper 53
18 Mahendrabhai’s medical cerificate 54
Police list regarding medical treatment of accused
19 57
parulben
Medical Certificate of accused Parulben from Civil
20 58
hospital
21 Complainant’s Compliant 62
22 Map 71
23 Letter to draw the map 72
24 Report of the Local F.S.L. visit of crime scene 74
25 Report of Fingerprint expert of crime scene 75
26 Letter to provide opinion of Muddamal analysis 76
27 Receipt note of sending the Muddamal to F.S.L 77
28 Receipt of the received Muddamal to F.S.L 78
29 F.S.L’s biological report with forwarding letter 79

Page 6 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

Ex.
Name of Exhibit Page No.
No.
30 F.S.L’s serological report. 80
31 Analysis report form the chemical department to FSL 81
Copy of the disarmament notification issued by the
32 82
Police Commissioner's
33 Letter and index regarding registration of crime. 83
34 Station Diary extract 86
35 D.V.D 88
Letter of the consideration of witnesses with the main
36 94
charge-sheet
37 List of original case papers from the investigation. 95
38 State report of the C.R.I. No. 2452/16 96

8. Appreciation of Key Oral Evidence: The prosecution examined
several material witnesses whose depositions form the foundational oral
evidence in this circumstantial case. The relevant testimonies of the
complainant (father of the deceased), neighbouring witnesses, and
the Investigating Officer are summarized below:

8.1 PW-11: Chandubhai Jerambhai Nathani Father of the
deceased Reshma Devendrabhai Godani, deposed that on
30.01.2016 at about 19:00 hrs he received a telephone call from
Mahendrabhai Ramesh bhai Godani informing him that Reshma
had consumed acid. Reaching flat C/504, Meghmalhar Residency,
he found accused Devendrabhai, Mahendrabhai, and Parulben
present, all of whom stated Reshma had consumed acid. He
observed the deceased lying near the bedroom door in moribund
condition wearing coffee-coloured kurta and red pyjama, with blunt
injury marks on head and forehead, blackened face, burnt skin on
face and both hands from acid, and burn marks plus nail scratches
on Parulben’s hands. These led him to suspect murder rather than

Page 7 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

suicide. He directed his brother-in-law to inform police, resulting in
registration of FIR, which he identified. He further stated his wife
later disclosed an alleged illicit relationship between Devendrabhai
and Parulben, causing marital discord and harassment after
Reshma discovered it. In cross-examination, he remained at the
scene till about 03:00 hrs, confirmed Parulben’s hand injuries
burns and scratches but did not notice jewellery details, stated
affair information came from his wife only post-cremation, denied
Parulben’s burns were from hot water poured by deceased,
admitted limited post-marriage visits and no knowledge of interlock
door-key system, noted door was open on arrival with no outsiders
inside, and maintained suspicion against Devendrabhai,
Mahendrabhai, and particularly Parulben, reiterating injuries
suggested murder possibly involving more than one person as per
FIR.

8.2. PW-13 Kanchanben resident of flat C/501 directly opposite
the crime scene, deposed that she saw deceased Reshma and
accused Parulben together in flat C/504 around 14:30 hrs on the
day of incident after returning from Daman. She had no direct
knowledge of the offence. She learned of the incident only when
Parulben shouted to neighbour Induben who is resident of flat
C/503 that Reshma had consumed acid, leading to initial belief of
suicide. She went to the flat only after the shout but could not see
inside due to heavy smoke and returned without viewing the body.
In cross-examination, she confirmed accompanying Devendrabhai
(deceased’s husband) to court that day, being questioned by police
the next day, and not entering the flat earlier due to smoke.

8.3. PW-14 Krishnaben resident of flat C/502, deposed that after

Page 8 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

18:00 hrs on 30.01.2016 she heard accused Parulben repeatedly
shouting “Acid splashed, acid splashed”, causing neighbours to
gather. At the flat entrance she observed smoke, strong acid smell,
spilled blood, and deceased Reshma lying in died condition on the
bedroom threshold with acid splashed on her face. She saw no
actual act or further interior details. Initially appeared as acid
attack; later general talk indicated murder by Parulben. She
confirmed only three females present: Reshma, Parulben, and
Parulben’s daughter. She identified Parulben in court and stated
her police statement was recorded. In cross-examination, she
clarified Devendrabhai accompanied her to court that day, “acid
splashed” phrase arose from passage gossip among gathered
persons (not recorded in her police statement), and body position
was specifically bedroom threshold, not main entrance.

8.4. PW-17 Kanubhai the Investigating Officer who acted as PSO
on 30.01.2016, deposed that he recorded FIR from complainant
Chandubhai alleging murder, conducted spot and inquest
panchnamas, recorded neighbour statements, sent body for post-
mortem, arrested accused Parulben after her discovery of clothes
worn during offence and hidden earrings of deceased, seized
articles including blood and hair samples, acid bottle, blood-stained
clothes, and wooden dhoko from scene, forwarded them to FSL,
included local FSL spot visit report, fingerprint report, and
biological, serological, chemical analysis reports, and filed charge-
sheet only against Parulben.

8.5. In cross-examination, he confirmed only hand injuries noted
in arrest panchnama, initial suspicion on Mahendrabhai and
Devendrabhai but no charge-sheet against them as evidence

Page 9 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

pointed only to Parulben, chance prints on dhoko did not match
accused’s fingerprints, blood and acid-stained shirt and pants
found, limited inquiry into alleged affair and door lock system,
CCTV footage seized later on 17.02.2016, and denied fabrication of
panchnamas or false case, maintaining the accused committed the
offence. The above oral evidence, particularly the observations of
PW-11 injuries inconsistent with suicide, suspicion on multiple
persons and neighbours, forms the core direct testimony.

9. The prosecution's case, as supported by the written
arguments at Exhibit-102 and the evidence on record, is that the
deceased Reshmaben Devendrabhai Godani and the accused
Parulben Mahendrabhai Godani were real sisters-in-law (dearani-
jethani). The accused had an illicit relationship with the deceased’s
husband Devendra, which came to the deceased’s knowledge, and
had previously taken away the deceased’s jewellery, leading to
repeated taunts and rebukes by the deceased and thereby creating
deep enmity. On the day of the incident, actuated by this enmity,
the accused assaulted the deceased on the head with a wooden
pestle (dhoka), inflicting grievous injuries including fracture of
nasal bone, other fractures, and broken teeth, which collectively
caused her death. With the premeditated intention of destroying
evidence and staging a suicide, the accused poured acid on the
deceased’s face to disfigure it and falsely projected the death as
self-inflicted by consumption of acid. Prior to the incident, the
accused was captured on CCTV footage produced and viewed
during trial going downstairs via lift to procure the acid bottle and
returning to the flat, demonstrating clear premeditation and
preparation. At the time of the offence, only the accused, the
deceased, and the accused’s minor daughter aged about 6 years
were present in the flat. The husbands of both were elsewhere and

Page 10 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

bore no incriminating injuries. Immediately after the act, the
accused herself shouted and called neighbours whereupon
neighbouring witness Kanchanben arrived and found the deceased
lying dead in a pool of blood with acid fumes in the house; no other
living adult was present. The accused sustained burn injuries on
her hand caused by a corrosive liquid like consistent with acid, as
opined by the Medical Officer and scratch nail mark injuries on
both sides of her chest injuries she falsely attributed to hot water
without satisfactory explanation. Human blood was detected in her
hair and nail samples as per F.S.L. biological and serological
reports, which she failed to explain. She gave false information to
the deceased’s parents that the death was due to acid consumption,
and blood stained clothes were recovered from the flat, indicating
attempts to destroy evidence by washing them and cleaning the
scene.

9.1. The prosecution asserts that this forms an unbroken chain of
circumstances motive from the illicit affair and jewellery dispute,
exclusive presence and opportunity, prior procurement of acid,
unexplained injuries on the accused inconsistent with her version,
recovery of the weapon and acid bottle, false explanations, human
blood in her samples, CCTV footage of preparation, immediate
post-incident conduct, and absence of any other person at the
scene pointing unerringly and exclusively to the guilt of the
accused and to no one else.

9.2. Even if the defence contention regarding imperfect proof of
jewellery recovery or motive is accepted in arguing, motive is not
essential in a circumstantial evidence case, and where the chain
conclusively establishes guilt, the accused cannot escape

Page 11 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

conviction for murder merely because motive is not proved to the
hilt. The CCTV footage is admissible as electronic evidence of pre-
incident preparatory conduct, having been viewed during trial,
copy supplied to defence, and the concerned employee examined as
a witness; its authenticity and non-tamperable nature make it a
relevant link in the chain. In substance, the accused, driven by
enmity arising from an illicit relationship and jewellery dispute,
with premeditation and in furtherance of a criminal design,
murdered the deceased by inflicting fatal head injuries with a
wooden pestle and thereafter poured acid on her face to destroy
evidence and stage a suicide, all of which stands established by a
complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances
pointing solely to her guilt.

10. The defence's case supported by the evidence and cross-
examination on record, is that the prosecution has failed to prove
the guilt of the accused Parulben Mahendrabhai Godani beyond
reasonable doubt, and that several serious doubts and infirmities
render the case unreliable, warranting acquittal. The residential
flat had a main entrance door with an interlocking latch and four
keys, one each with the four family members (the accused, her
husband Mahendrabhai, the deceased Reshmaben, and the
deceased’s husband Devendrabhai), allowing any of them to enter
or exit independently at any time without restriction. In the original
complaint, the complainant named not only the accused but also
Mahendrabhai and Devendrabhai as suspects in the murder
conspiracy. However, during investigation their names were
dropped without adequate explanation, raising questions about
selective prosecution. The Medical Officer who conducted the post-
mortem accepted in cross-examination the defence suggestion that
the deceased’s death could have been caused by more than one
person, and that restraint would explain her inability to resist

Page 12 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

making it possible that Mahendrabhai and Devendrabhai acted
together to inflict injuries and pour acid on her. It was
Mahendrabhai (the accused’s husband) who first telephoned the
complainant and informed him that the deceased had consumed
acid a fact inconsistent with the prosecution’s claim that the
accused alone sprinkled acid to stage suicide. The accused was
medically examined twice before and after arrest, and initially both
husbands were also treated as suspects and medically examined,
yet no incriminating injuries linking them to a scuffle were found;
this cannot lead to the conclusion that only the accused was
involved. The wooden pestle was already lying at the scene when
the panchnama was prepared and chance prints were lifted by the
F.S.L. officer; yet the panchnama was drawn up as if the accused
later discovered and produced it, rendering the so called discovery
unreliable and incapable of being used as an incriminating
circumstance. Similarly, the alleged recovery of the deceased’s
jewellery on being pointed out by the accused has not been
properly proved, and the possibility that the pestle was planted
cannot be ruled out.

10.1. The evidence of Medical Officers cannot be accepted as
invariably true, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mayur
Panabhai Shah vs. State of Gujarat (1982 Cri.L.J. 1972) ,
where it was observed that a doctor’s statement is not always
presumed to be correct.

10.2. The chest scratch injuries allegedly noticed by Dr. Anand
Chhotubhai Patel on 31/01/2016 were not corroborated by Dr.
Nishaben Vinodbhai Chandrani’s subsequent examination and
certificate (Exhibits-56 & 57), rendering this piece of evidence

Page 13 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

doubtful and unreliable for linking the accused to the crime.

10.3. The CCTV footage has not been properly proved: it was not
produced in original form, the statement of the person who handled
it was recorded 17 days later while the witness claims it was
viewed and copied on the same day, raising a strong possibility of
subsequent fabrication or tampering.

10.4. Moreover, the original complaint appears to have been
suppressed, rendering the entire investigation tainted; no reliance
can be placed on such a flawed probe. The charge-sheet was filed
only against the accused, with no case made out against any other
persons. Yet Section 120(B) IPC was invoked, which by definition
requires at least two persons; this internal contradiction in the
prosecution’s own case makes it dangerous to hold that the
accused alone committed the murder. Recovery of jewellery and
the weapon has not been proved satisfactorily, so the charge under
Section 394 IPC cannot stand. The incident occurred inside a
private residential flat, not a public place, and therefore no offence
under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act is made out.

10.5. In view of these infirmities multiple access to the flat,
dropping of other named suspects, possibility of involvement of
more than one person, unreliable medical evidence on injuries,
doubtful recoveries presented as discoveries, unproved and
potentially fabricated CCTV footage, tainted investigation, and
failure to prove exclusive involvement no clear and unbroken chain
of circumstances exists pointing solely to the accused. The
prosecution has not succeeded in proving the charges beyond
reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of

Page 14 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

doubt. In substance, the defence submits that the evidence is
replete with serious doubts, inconsistencies and procedural lapses;
the possibility of involvement of others particularly the
Devendrabhai (deceased’s husband) and Mahendrabhai (accused’s
husband) initially suspected cannot be ruled out; the investigation
is tainted; and the circumstantial chain is far from complete or
conclusive. The accused must therefore be acquitted by holding her
not guilty and setting her at liberty.

11. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the
appellant that the appeal against conviction deserves to be allowed
and the appellant Parulben Mahendrabhai Godani is entitled to be
acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt to her. The impugned
judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 150/2016 suffers from
lapses in appreciation evidence, overlooking of material infirmities
and contradictions appearing on record, and impermissible
drawing of adverse inferences against the accused and has failed to
consider the material aspects in a case which rests entirely upon
circumstantial evidence.

11.1. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, as
repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of
decisions including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), that in cases based wholly on
circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be
complete, cogent, consistent and incapable of explanation with any
hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The chain must be
so far complete as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis
consistent with the innocence of the accused. If two views are

Page 15 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

reasonably possible on the evidence on record one pointing to the
guilt of the accused and the other to her innocence then the view
which is favourable to the accused must be accepted and she must
be given the benefit of doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, several serious and reasonable doubts persist which
make it impossible for this Court to hold that the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt.

12. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the
appellants – accused has relied upon the decision in case of
Laxman Prasad Alias Laxman vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
[(2023) 6 SCC 399] and Munikrishna alias Krishna etc. vs.
State by Ulsoor PS [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1449] and has
submitted that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court if one link in chain of circumstances to be missing and not
proved, the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is required
to be set aside.

13. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the alleged motive of
deep rooted enmity arising from an illicit relationship between the
accused Parulben and the deceased’s husband Devendrabhai,
coupled with previous disputes over gold and silver jewellery.
However, no satisfactory material whatsoever has been produced
on record to substantiate the existence of any such illicit
relationship. The entire motive of illicit relationship therefore
remains in the realm of mere allegation and suspicion. Similarly,
the allegation of previously taking away of jewellery by the accused
has not been proved by any documentary evidence such as
receipts, photographs of jewellery, previous police complaint or any
independent witness. In absence of proof of motive, though motive

Page 16 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

is not sine qua non for conviction in a murder case, its absence
certainly becomes a relevant factor which weakens the prosecution
case when the entire evidence is circumstantial in nature and when
the prosecution has sought to build the chain of circumstances
upon the foundation of such unproved motive. The Sessions Court
has erred in treating this unproved motive as a proved
circumstance in the chain.

14. The testimony of neighbouring witnesses PW-13 Kanchanben
and PW-14 Krishnaben, though independent and reliable to the
extent that they reached the spot immediately after hearing the
alarm raised by the accused herself, only establishes that at the
time of their arrival, only the accused Parulben along with her
minor daughter aged about 6 years was present in the flat and the
deceased was lying dead in a pool of blood with acid fumes in the
air. This circumstance by no stretch of imagination conclusively
proves that the accused was the author of the crime or that no
other person could have been involved in the commission of offence
prior to the arrival of these neighbours. The flat is situated in a
multi-storey apartment building; the main entrance door had an
interlocking latch system and four separate keys were available
with four adult family members the accused, her husband
Mahendrabhai, the deceased Reshmaben and her husband
Devendrabhai. Any of them could have entered or exited the flat
independently at any time. The possibility that some other person
committed the act and left the flat before the accused raised the
alarm cannot be ruled out merely on the basis of the presence of
the accused at the time of arrival of neighbours. The Sessions
Court has not considered the aspect in treating this circumstance
as proof of exclusive opportunity and sole authorship by the
accused.

Page 17 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

15. One of the most crucial aspects of the defence which has
been completely overlooked by the Sessions Court is the specific
explanation offered by the accused herself. In her detailed
statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure as well as in her defence evidence, the accused has
categorically stated that she was trying to save the deceased
Reshmaben at the time of incident and in the process of handling
or removing the acid bottle or trying to help the deceased, she
herself received burn injury on her hand due to accidental contact
with the corrosive substance. This explanation is not only plausible
but also consistent with the nature of the injury sustained by her.
The medical evidence shows that the burn was on the hand and
was caused by a corrosive substance like acid. It is quite possible in
the heat of the moment that while attempting to rescue or assist
the deceased who had already been attacked, the accused came in
contact with the acid. The prosecution has not led any positive
evidence to disprove this version or to show that the injury was
sustained during the commission of the offence itself. In such
circumstances, when a plausible and reasonable explanation is
forthcoming from the accused which is not inherently improbable,
it is not safe to discard the same merely for want of corroboration.
The benefit of doubt arising from this plausible explanation ought
to have been given to the accused.

16. The forensic evidence of detection of human blood in the hair
and nail clippings of the accused is undoubtedly a serious
incriminating circumstance. However, the prosecution has not
conducted any DNA profiling to conclusively establish that the
blood belongs to the deceased. In absence of such scientific
corroboration, the possibility of secondary or transfer

Page 18 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

contamination during the course of the accused trying to save the
deceased, lifting her body, or handling her in an attempt to render
help cannot be ruled out. The chain of custody of the samples,
though not seriously challenged, still leaves some scope for doubt
when considered along with the overall facts of the case. The
Sessions Court has erred in treating this circumstance as
conclusive proof of active participation in the crime without
considering the reasonable alternative hypothesis put forward by
the defence.

17. The CCTV footage, which is heavily relied upon by the
prosecution to establish premeditation and prior procurement of
acid, suffers from serious evidentiary infirmities rendering it unsafe
for reliance. There is no certificate as mandated under Section
65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, in the prescribed form, has been
produced. The statement of the concerned apartment employee
was recorded after an unexplained delay of about seventeen days.
There is no contemporaneous panchnama evidencing seizure of the
original hard disk or the CCTV recording system under proper
safeguards. In the absence of these foundational requirements, the
possibility of subsequent editing, selective clipping, or even
fabrication cannot be completely ruled out. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap Vs. State of Maharashtra
(2025 INSC 116), has categorically held that electronic evidence
such as CCTV footage, in the absence of strict compliance with
Section 65B(4) and without proof of integrity of the source device,
cannot be treated as reliable or admissible evidence. In the same
vein, the High Court of Gujarat in Dhruben Guraldas Balani Vs.
State of Gujarat has unequivocally held that “Electronic records –
admissibility of – content of electronic records can not be proved by oral
evidence – it becomes mandatory that before referring D.V.D., C.D or
photographs, which may be digitally taken, cerftificate u/S. 65B(4) of

Page 19 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

Evidence Act would be a pre-requisite for Court to consider them as
admissible information contained in electronic record. ” The Sessions
Court has not considered the aspect in treating the said CCTV
footage as trustworthy electronic evidence to establish
premeditation.

18. The recoveries of blood stained clothes from the almirah and
the wooden pestle (dhoka) also remain doubtful. The almirah from
which the clothes were allegedly recovered was admittedly not
locked. The flat had already been opened by the police before the
so called discovery. The wooden pestle was already lying at the
scene of offence when the FSL team visited and prepared the
panchnama; yet it was later shown as a discovery at the instance of
the accused. These circumstances raise serious question marks
about the voluntariness and genuineness of the recoveries and the
possibility of improvement or planting cannot be wholly ruled out.

19. The initial complaint lodged by the father of the deceased
specifically named not only the accused but also her husband
Mahendrabhai and the deceased’s husband Devendrabhai as
suspected persons in the conspiracy to commit the murder.
However, during investigation their names were quietly dropped
without any detailed explanation or justification appearing on
record. The medical evidence recorded during trial also accepted
the possibility that the injuries could have been caused by more
than one person. These factors, taken cumulatively, create a
serious doubt about the fairness and completeness of the
investigation and about the theory of sole involvement of the
accused. Though the post-mortem report conclusively establishes
that the death was homicidal and was caused by repeated blows
with a blunt object resulting in grievous injuries including fracture

Page 20 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

of nasal bone, multiple fractures and broken teeth, the most vital
link that is, the positive proof that it was the accused and the
accused alone who inflicted those injuries remains conspicuously
missing and unproved beyond reasonable doubt when viewed in the
light of all the aforesaid infirmities and doubts.

20. Furthermore, the prosecution's reliance on the alleged false
information provided by the accused to the deceased's family that
the death resulted from self consumption of acid fails to hold up
under scrutiny. While the accused did initially convey this
narrative, the evidence suggests it could have been a panicked or
mistaken assumption in the chaotic aftermath of discovering the
body, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. The Sessions
Court overlooked the fact that Mahendrabhai the accused's
husband, was the first to inform the complainant via telephone
about the acid consumption, as admitted in the testimony. This
shifts the origin of the misinformation away from the accused
exclusively and raises questions about why the prosecution did not
probe deeper into the roles of other family members. In
circumstantial evidence cases, where every link must be ironclad,
such ambiguities erode the chain's integrity and support a
hypothesis of innocence, as the accused's statements could align
with a genuine belief in suicide before the full extent of injuries
was apparent.

21. Another infirmity lies in the handling of the acid bottle and its
procurement. The prosecution claims the accused fetched the acid
earlier that morning, but the evidence chain is broken by the lack
of direct linkage to the bottle used in the incident. No fingerprints
or forensic traces tying the accused definitively to the bottle were
presented, and the CCTV footage already deemed unreliable due to

Page 21 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

non-compliance with evidentiary standards does not show the
contents of what was carried. The defence's suggestion that the
acid could have been present in the household for legitimate
purposes, such as cleaning, or brought by another person, remains
unrefuted. Here, the acid's presence and use could reasonably
point to involvement by others, particularly given the multi key
access to the flat, thereby warranting the benefit of doubt for the
accused.

22. The invocation of Section 120(B) IPC for criminal conspiracy,
despite charging only the accused, exposes a fundamental flaw in
the prosecution's framework. Conspiracy, by its nature, requires
agreement between two or more persons, yet the chargesheet and
trial proceeded against a solitary accused without identifying co-
conspirators. This anomaly, unaddressed by the Sessions Court,
renders the charge untenable and suggests a prosecutorial
overreach to bolster weaker elements of the case.

22.1. The entire case's credibility is undermined, as it implies the
investigation selectively targeted the accused while exonerating
others named in the FIR without transparent reasoning, creating a
reasonable doubt that precludes conviction.

22.2. Moreover, the post-mortem and medical evidence, while
establishing homicidal death, do not point the time of death with
precision sufficient to exclude the possibility of the offence
occurring when the accused was not the only one present. The
approximate time of death, based on rigor mortis and other
indicators, allows for a window during which Devendrabhai or
Mahendrabhai could have been in the flat, as their alibis were not
rigorously verified with independent corroboration like mobile

Page 22 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

location data or witness accounts. The Medical Officer's concession
in cross-examination that the injuries could result from multiple
assailants further supports the defence's theory of joint
involvement by the Devendrabhai and Mahendrabhai, possibly
motivated by familial disputes or financial issues unexamined by
the prosecution.

23. 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. In such circumstances and while appreciating the
evidence on record. 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.

24. 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

Page 23 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

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 (supra) 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. 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.”

25. 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 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

Page 24 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

in the chain of evidence; in the present case, the chain is not
completed.

26. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and upon an
overall appreciation of the evidence on record, it clearly emerges
that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and
unbroken chain of circumstances so as to point unerringly towards
the guilt of the accused alone. On the contrary, several reasonable
hypotheses consistent with the innocence of the accused arise from
the material on record, which have not been satisfactorily excluded
by the prosecution. The possibility of involvement of other family
members or occupants, who admittedly had free and unhindered
access to the flat at the relevant time, has not been ruled out by
leading cogent or reliable evidence. The reliance placed upon the
injuries found on the accused and the alleged bloodstains is wholly
misplaced, inasmuch as the defence has offered a plausible and
consistent explanation that the same were sustained while
attempting to assist and rescue the victim. The said explanation
cannot be said to be improbable or false, and in the absence of any
convincing rebuttal by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Court
was not justified in treating the said circumstance as incriminating.
Likewise, the prosecution evidence in the form of CCTV footage,
recoveries, and forensic material suffers from serious infirmities.
The evidentiary value of such material is considerably diluted on
account of gaps in the chain of custody, lack of independent
corroboration, and inconsistencies in the oral evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. The CCTV footage, in particular, does not
conclusively establish the presence of the accused at the scene of
offence at the relevant time nor does it exclude the presence of
other persons. It is a settled position of law that where a case rests
entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon

Page 25 of 26
R/CR.A/700/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026

must be fully established and must form a chain so complete as to
exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The
learned Sessions Court has not considered the aspect to apply this
well established principle, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(supra), and has proceeded to record the conviction on
conjectures and surmises. In the considered opinion of this Hon’ble
Court, such an approach has resulted in serious prejudice to the
accused and has caused substantial prejudice affecting the fairness
of the trial. The impugned judgment and order of conviction,
therefore, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set
aside.

27. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is
set aside, and the appellant Parulben Mahendrabhai Godani is
acquitted of all charges. She shall be released forthwith unless
wanted in any other case. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod/MVP

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/01/2026 15:09:40

Page 26 of 26