Holding

The appellate court upheld the acquittal as the evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the view of the Sessions Court was a possible conclusion.

Summary

The State appealed the acquittal of six accused who were found not guilty of offences including murder, assault and rioting arising from a dispute on 28 February 1996. The prosecution relied mainly on the testimonies of the complainant and the deceased's wife, alleging that the accused beat the deceased and struck him on the head with a stone, causing his death. The High Court examined the eyewitness statements, found them inconsistent and unreliable, and gave greater weight to medical evidence showing that the deceased died of natural cardiac and cerebral pathology, with only a superficial head abrasion. The investigation was deemed defective for failing to collect crucial forensic material, and no weapon or blood link to the accused was established. Applying the principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court held that the Sessions Court’s view was a reasonable conclusion on the record and that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.

Issues considered

The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the appellate court can overturn an acquittal when two reasonable conclusions are possible.
Whether the eyewitness testimonies are reliable in light of medical and forensic evidence.

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Acts. 135(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 378
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 143, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 323, s. 504

Subjects

appeal against acquittalSection 378 CrPCpresumption of innocencemedical evidencenatural deathevidentiary standardIPC offences

Judgment

R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 840 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
VINAYAKBHAI BHAUSAHEB KAVLANEKAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date: 04/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 31.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Ahmedabad Rural in Sessions Case No.127 of 1996, whereby the
respondents-accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – State
has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

Page 1 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

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

2.1. The complainant, who is the nephew of the deceased, lodged a
complaint alleging that on 28.02.1996 at about 21:00 hours, while
proceeding with the deceased and his wife to attend a condolence at a
relative's place, a dispute arose over parking of a vehicle obstructing the
path near bungalow No.64 in K.K. Nagar Society, Ghatlodiya,
Ahmedabad. It was alleged that the respondents assaulted the deceased
with fists and blows, and respondent No.1 struck the deceased on the
head with a stone, leading to injuries from which the deceased
succumbed. The complainant and the deceased's wife also claimed to
have been assaulted. The complaint was registered under the
aforementioned sections at Ghatlodiya Police Station, bearing CR No.I-
70/1996. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural, registered as Criminal Case
No.1796/1996.

2.2. As the Chief Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to try the
offence under Section 302 IPC, the case was committed to the Sessions
Court, Ahmedabad Rural vide order dated 05.08.1996 and registered as
Sessions Case No.127/1996 for trial. Upon conclusion of the prosecution
evidence, the learned Sessions Court put various incriminating
circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent-accused for
their explanation under Section 313 of the Code. In their further
statements, the respondent-accused denied all the incriminating
circumstances as false and stated that they are innocent and have been
falsely implicated. After examining the oral and documentary evidence
and the submissions from both sides, the learned Sessions Court recorded
a finding in favour of the respondent-accused and acquitted them of all

Page 2 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

charges.

3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before
the learned Sessions Court. During the course of the trial, the prosecution
examined a total of 11 witnesses. The details of the oral and documentary
evidence are as under:

~:: Oral Evidence ::~
P.W.
Particular Exh.
No.
1. Sumanbhai Ramanlal Kothari 13
2. Dr. Babubhai Ambalal Patel 14
3. Jagdishbhai Narmdashankar 18
4. Ailiyamma Philip 21
5. Anandprakash Rasikbhai Acharya 22
6. Jashodaben Indravadanbhai Acharya 25
7. Dy.S.P. Parmeshwarprasad Sarvajeet 35
8. Dr. Ghanshyambhai Chunilal Patel 37
9. P.S.O. Balabhai Devabhai Parmar 46
10. Jashvantbhai Hartaji 48
11. Dr. Ravindra Shrikrushna Bhinse 28

~:: Documentary Evidence ::~
Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.
1. Original Complaint 23
2. Slip regarding rows of bricks 19
3. Panchnama of place of incident 20
4. Yadi from Ghatlodia Police Station 29
5. Reply to yadi from Dr. Desai 30
6. PM Notes 31

Page 3 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.
7. Inquest Panchnama 24
8. Panchnama of clothes of deceased 38
9. Charge Frame 26
10. FSL Receipt 27
11. Muddamal dispatch report 28
12. Sketch of place of incident 29
13. Letter to FSL 30
14. FSL Report 31
15. Opinion regarding reasons of death 32
16. Further opinion 30
17. Complaint of Atul Vinayak 36
18. Medical certificate of Anand Rasiklal 38
19. Medical certificate of Atul Vinayak 39
20. Medical certificate of Vinayak Bhavsaheb 40
21. Medical certificate of Jitendra Vinayak 41
22. Telephone vardhi slip 47

4. The learned APP appearing for the appellant – State, submitted that
the impugned judgment requires interference, primarily relying upon the
deposition of the complainant examined as (PW-5, Exh.-22) and the
deceased's wife as (PW-6, Exh.-25). Their testimonies, according to the
prosecution, establish the assault on 28.02.1996 at about 21:00 hours,
leading to the death of the deceased due to head injury caused by a stone,
as supported by the post-mortem note (Exh.-31). It is not in dispute that
the deceased suffered a head injury and was declared dead at the spot, as
corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Babubhai Ambalal Patel
(PW-2, Exh.-14). Hence, it was contended that the learned Sessions Court
erred in acquitting the accused.
4.1. The learned APP further submitted that the evidence of other

Page 4 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

material witnesses corroborates the prosecution case and, therefore,
the acquittal warrants interference and conviction of the
respondent-accused.

5. The learned Advocate for the respondent-accused Nos.2 to 6
submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.
He contended that the testimonies of the complainant (PW-5, Exh.-22)
and the deceased's wife (PW-6, Exh.-25) are unreliable due to
inconsistencies with the medical evidence, as the post-mortem note
(Exh.-31) attributes death to natural causes involving cardio-respiratory
failure and intra-cerebral hemorrhage following pathology in the brain
and heart. Several witnesses, including Sumanbhai Ramanlal Kothari
(PW-1, Exh.-13) and Ailiyamma Philip (PW-4, Exh.-21), turned hostile
and did not support the prosecution. It was further submitted that no
independent witnesses corroborated the assault, no weapon was recovered
matching the injury, and the FSL reports (Exh.-31 and Exh.-32) do not
link the accused to the deceased's blood. Hence, in absence of any
evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal is justified.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and perused the
depositions of the witnesses, documentary evidence, and the judgment of
the Sessions Court, it appears that the testimonies of the complainant and
the deceased's wife, who are the alleged eyewitnesses, lack credibility.

7. The prosecution case is mainly based on the statements of the
complainant Anandprakash Rasikbhai Acharya (PW-5, Exh.-22) and the
wife of the deceased, Jashodaben Indravadanbhai Acharya (PW-6, Exh.-
25), who are said to be eyewitnesses to the incident. As per the
complainant (PW-5, Exh.-22), on 28.02.1996 at about 21:00 hours, while
he was going with the deceased and the deceased’s wife to the house of a

Page 5 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

relative, an argument took place near bungalow No.64 in K.K. Nagar
Society because a parked vehicle was blocking the way. He stated that
during this dispute, the accused beat the deceased with fists and blows,
and that accused No.1 (Vinayakbhai) hit the deceased on the head with a
stone, causing injuries that resulted in his death. He also claimed that he
himself was beaten by the accused. However, the learned Sessions Court
found his testimony unreliable because it did not match the medical
evidence, there was no support from independent witnesses, and there
was no proof connecting the alleged weapon to the injury. The learned
Sessions Court noted that no independent witness supported the
allegation of assault, no weapon was recovered that could be clearly
connected to the injury, and the FSL reports did not link the accused with
the blood of the deceased. After re-examining the evidence, we agree
with the learned Sessions Court. The complainant’s version appears
exaggerated, as it does not fit with the postmortem report, which states
that the death was due to natural causes and not because of an assault.
The medical evidence also shows no serious injuries on the body that
would normally be expected from a severe beating, which further
weakens his version. In simple words, an prudent person would
understand that the complainant’s story does not match the doctors’
scientific findings, making it difficult to accept that the accused
intentionally caused the death.

8. Likewise, the deceased’s wife Jashodaben Indravadanbhai Acharya
(PW-6, Exh.-25) stated that the accused assaulted her husband with fists
and blows, and that accused No.1 struck him on the head with a stone,
after which he started bleeding and became unconscious. She further
stated that her husband fell on a heap of concrete debris and that she took
a Sorbitrate tablet from his pocket and placed it in his mouth. The learned
Sessions Court pointed out inconsistencies in her testimony, especially

Page 6 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

because the medical evidence did not show fractures or serious injuries
that would be expected from such blows. The court also noted that her act
of giving a Sorbitrate tablet indicated that she was aware of her husband’s
existing heart condition. The learned Sessions Court further observed that
no bloodstains were found either at the scene or on her clothes to support
her claim of bleeding. We agree with this assessment. Although she
described the sequence of events, her testimony does not explain how a
minor head injury could cause death when the postmortem clearly
showed serious brain and heart diseases as the real cause. It appears that
her version, possibly influenced by emotional distress, does not prove a
direct connection between the alleged assault and the death. In simple
terms, her statement does not show that the stone blow caused her
husband’s death, especially when doctors concluded that the death was
due to natural medical conditions affecting the brain and heart.

9. The medical evidence is the most important part of this case. Dr.
Babubhai Ambalal Patel (PW-2, Exh.-14), who was the first doctor to
examine the deceased at the spot, stated that when he checked the
deceased, there was no pulse, no breathing, and no heartbeat, and he
declared the deceased dead at the scene itself. He did not note any history
of assault and initially treated the case as a non-medico-legal one. The
learned Sessions Court rightly observed that if Dr. Babubhai Ambalal
Patel (PW-2, Exh.-14) had suspected a homicidal injury, he would have
reported it as a medico-legal case as per his duty. We agree with this
view. His immediate opinion suggests a sudden natural death rather than
death caused by injuries from an assault. His evidence also supports the
absence of external injuries indicating a violent beating.

10. Dr. Ravindra Shrikrushna Bhinse (PW-11, Exh.-28), Head of the
Forensic Department, who examined the postmortem notes, stated that

Page 7 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

the postmortem revealed only a small abrasion on the head measuring
1.75 cm x 0.5 cm. He clearly opined that the cause of death was cardio-
respiratory failure due to intra-cerebral hemorrhage resulting from disease
of the brain and heart. He explained that the deceased had thickened heart
walls, narrowing of coronary arteries due to atherosclerosis, and ruptured
blood vessels in the brain causing subarachnoid hemorrhage. According
to him, the head injury was superficial, not sufficient to cause death, and
could have occurred due to a fall on a rough surface such as concrete
debris. He further stated that excitement or high blood pressure could
trigger such a natural event in a person with these existing health
problems. The learned Sessions Court carefully examined this evidence
and concluded that it ruled out homicidal death and clearly pointed to
natural causes. After independent consideration, we agree with this
conclusion. The expert medical opinion, supported by histopathology
reports, clearly establishes that the death occurred due to long-standing
heart and brain disease and not because of the alleged stone blow. For a
prudent person, this means that medical tests proved the deceased died
due to his own serious health issues, like a heart problem or brain
hemorrhage, and not because someone hit him with enough force to kill
him.

11. The postmortem report (Exh.-31) and the subsequent medical
opinion (Exh.-30) given by Dr. D.S. Desai, who conducted the autopsy,
initially kept the cause of death pending histopathology and later
confirmed that the death was natural due to the same diseases. The
learned Sessions Court noted that the injury found was not sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course and that there was no internal damage
such as a skull fracture. We find no error in this assessment, as all the
medical reports consistently rule out homicide and clearly point to natural
death. The fact that no blood was found on the alleged weapon, namely

Page 8 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

the stone recovered from the scene, further supports this conclusion, as
the FSL report (Exh.-31) did not match any blood group with that of the
deceased.

12. Other witnesses also do not support the prosecution case.
Sumanbhai Ramanlal Kothari (PW-1, Exh.-13), who informed the police
by telephone, stated that he heard about a quarrel over parking and saw
the dead body of the deceased, but he did not see the assault. He turned
hostile and did not support the prosecution. The learned Sessions Court
treated him as hostile and found his testimony useless for proving the
alleged assault. We see no reason to disagree, as his evidence only shows
that a dispute occurred, not that a violent attack caused the death.

13. Ailiyamma Philip (PW-4, Exh.-21), a nurse who tried to massage
the chest of the deceased, stated that she saw people gathered and the
deceased lying unconscious, but she did not witness the assault and could
not identify the accused. She also turned hostile. The learned Sessions
Court rejected her evidence due to lack of support. We agree, as her
presence after the incident does not help prove the prosecution’s claim of
a deliberate fatal assault.

14. Independent witness Jagdishbhai Narmdashankar (PW-3, Exh.-18),
who acted as a panch witness for the scene panchnama, stated that a
bloodstained stone and other articles were recovered from the place of
incident. However, the learned Sessions Court observed that the
panchnama (Exh.-20) did not record measurements of the debris or the
road, and the FSL report did not connect the stone with the blood of the
deceased. We agree that this evidence is only circumstantial and does not
prove that the stone was used as a murder weapon, especially when the
injury could also be caused by a fall.

Page 9 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

15. The Investigating Officer, Dy.S.P. Parmeshwarprasad Sarvajeet
(PW-7, Exh.-35), explained the steps taken during investigation,
including registration of the FIR, preparation of panchnamas, and sending
articles to FSL. During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not
collect control soil samples, blood from the scene, or bloodstained clothes
of witnesses, and that he did not investigate the heart condition of the
deceased. The learned Sessions Court found these lapses serious and held
the investigation to be defective. After reviewing the record, we agree
that these omissions are important and they weaken the prosecution case
by leaving major gaps in proving that the assault caused the death. In
simple terms, the police failed to collect important evidence, such as
blood samples from the spot, which could have clarified whether the
injury was caused by an attack or by a fall.

16. The documentary evidence, including the inquest panchnama
(Exh.-24), FSL reports (Exh.-31 and Exh.-32), and medical certificates of
injuries sustained by the accused (Exh.-39, Exh.-40, Exh.-41), shows that
the accused themselves had injuries, which the prosecution has not
explained. The learned Sessions Court therefore inferred that there may
have been a mutual scuffle and that the deceased might have collapsed
due to his existing health problems. We find this inference reasonable.
The injuries on the accused indicate that the incident was not a one-sided
brutal attack but possibly a minor altercation followed by the deceased’s
natural collapse.

17. The appellant-State argued that the learned Sessions Court wrongly
ignored the eyewitness accounts and relied too heavily on medical
evidence suggesting natural death. However, after considering the entire
material on record, we find that the learned Sessions Court adopted a

Page 10 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

balanced and reasoned approach. The medical evidence clearly and
strongly points to natural causes such as pre-existing atherosclerosis, an
enlarged heart, and cerebral hemorrhage, which may have been triggered
by excitement during the quarrel, and not by the minor head injury. The
lack of supporting evidence, serious lapses in investigation, and
contradictions in the prosecution witnesses fully justify the order of
acquittal.

18. In conclusion, the view taken by the learned Sessions Court is a
reasonable and possible view based on the evidence on record. There is
no perversity or incorrect appreciation of evidence that calls for
interference. The appellant has not shown that the acquittal has caused
any serious miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the appeal has no merit and
deserves to be dismissed.

19. 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 field
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.

Page 11 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

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

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling
reasons”, “good and sufficient 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 “flourishes 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,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the learned Sessions Court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Court.”

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

“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal,
is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal,
after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether

Page 12 of 13
R/CR.A/840/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026

the view taken by the learned Sessions 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 finding 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.”

21. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in
the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that the case of the
prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the
learned Sessions Court, the present appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed. Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court
concerned forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
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 04/02/2026 14:54:10

Page 13 of 13