PINTUBHAI @ KALIO DOLUBHAI VASAVAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.A/1027/2017                              JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1027 of
                       2017

                                With
                  R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1646 of 2017

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
=========================================
     Approved for Reporting     Yes   No

=========================================
           PINTUBHAI @ KALIO DOLUBHAI VASAVA
                           Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR P B KHAMBHOLJA(5730) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VINAY VISHAN, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                             Date : 12/02/2026

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


1.      The      present   Criminal   Appeals    are   preferred      by    the
appellants–accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 21.01.2017 passed by the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No.
21/2015, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences



                                  Page 1 of 27
     R/CR.A/1027/2017                           JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




punishable under Sections 302 read with 114 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The learned
Sessions Court sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further
undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC, and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in
default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the
offence under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The
substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.


2.      The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the two accused,
namely Ajaybhai alias Bodko Rameshbhai Vasava and Pintubhai
alias Kaliyo Dolubhai Vasava, both residents of Dansoli village,
Taluka Valiya, District Bharuch, had been persistently harassing
and teasing the deceased Parvatiben, a woman who was living
alone with her daughter, the complainant Mograben, at the same
village. The accused frequently visited Parvatiben’s house, made
indecent demands and advances for sexual acts, abused her with
filthy language, and subjected her to continuous molestation and
harassment. On the morning of 28.09.2014, when the complainant
Mograben returned home after completing her work, she found her
mother Parvatiben present at home along with both the accused.
The accused were then verbally abusing Parvatiben in vulgar
terms. When Parvatiben strongly objected and warned them that
she would report their conduct to the village Sarpanch if they
continued to come to her house, the accused became enraged and
threatened her by saying, “We will not let you live,” before leaving
the place. Later that same day, around 15:00 hours, while
Parvatiben had gone alone to the field in the Kim Khadi area of
Gandhuvagam to collect grass, the accused, nursing enmity and



                                Page 2 of 27
     R/CR.A/1027/2017                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




grudge due to her earlier resistance and warning, followed her to
the isolated spot. There, they again demanded immoral acts from
her. When Parvatiben firmly refused and resisted their advances,
the accused, in a fit of anger and with clear intention to cause her
death, assaulted her by inflicting multiple blows on her neck with a
sharp edged sickle (datardu). The assault resulted in deep, fatal
incised      wounds     on   the   neck,    leading   to   profuse     bleeding,
hemorrhagic shock, and ultimately her death at the spot. The
prosecution alleges that the accused acted in concert with common
intention to commit murder, knowing fully well that the use of a
dangerous weapon like a sickle on such a vital part of the body was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.


3.      On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant
Mograben immediately after the discovery of her mother’s dead
body, an offence was registered at Valiya Police Station vide Crime
Registration No. First 79/2014 under Sections 302 read with 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
The investigation was carried out by the police, during which
statements of witnesses were recorded, the scene of offence was
inspected, relevant panchnamas were prepared, the weapon
(sickle) was recovered at the instance of the accused persons, and
other incriminating articles were seized. After completion of the
investigation, a detailed charge sheet was filed before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valiya, where the case was initially
registered as Criminal Case No. 1050/2014. Since the offence
under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session,
the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Court,
Ankleshwar by order of the committing court. Upon receipt, it was
registered as Sessions Case No. 21/15.




                                    Page 3 of 27
     R/CR.A/1027/2017                              JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




4.      In the Sessions Court, when the accused appeared, it was
confirmed that they had received copies of all police papers. The
accused expressed their desire to engage a private advocate.
Thereafter, the charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. was framed
against them for the offences alleged. The charge was read over,
explained, and its meaning was made clear to the accused, who
pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations vide their statement
at Exh. 8. The case was accordingly fixed for recording of evidence,
and the trial proceeded with the examination of prosecution
witnesses,        production   of   documentary    evidence,     and     cross-
examination by the defence. The complainant party led both oral
and documentary evidence to establish the charges against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.


5.      In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as
many as 21 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents.


                               Oral Evidences:-

Sr.
    Exh.                      Name
No.
 1   11 Madhuben Bhupatbhai Vasava
 2   15 Sureshbhai Ramubhai Vasava
 3   20 Mukeshbhai Maheshbhai Vasava
 4   21 Anilbhai Dilipbhai Vasava
 5   24 Somabhai Bijalbhai Vasava
 6   25 Pravinsinh Naharsinh Kharachiya
 7   34 Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai Vasava
 8   39 Khumanbhai Devalabhai Vasava
 9   41 Akhadabhai Govindbhai Vasava
10 43 Rameshbhai Amrabhai Vasava
11 44 Champakbhai Chandubhai Vasava
12 45 Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava
13 46 Prakashbhai Sureshbhai Vasava
14 47 Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava


                                    Page 4 of 27
     R/CR.A/1027/2017                          JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




Sr.
    Exh.                  Name
No.
15 49 Mograben Prabhatbhai Vasava
16 51 Abhesig Budhiyabhai Vasava
17 52 Ramanbhai Haribhai Vasava
18 56 Dr. Ashwinbhai Khemabhai Katara
19 59 Dr. Pranavkumar Subhodhkumar Sinha
20 63 Priteshkumar Govindbhai Chaudhary
21 72 Radhesingh Bhaijibhai Bariya


                        Documentary Evidences:-

Sr.
    Exh.                Document Description
No.
 1   12 Inquest Panchnama
 2   16 Scene of Offence Panchnama
 3   22 Weapon Discovery Panchnama
 4   26 Panchnama for Seizure of Clothes of Accused
 5   35 Panchnama for Seizure of Clothes on the Dead Body
 6   40 Arrest Panchnama of Accused
 7   50 Complaint
 8   53 Copy of Station Diary
 9   57 Yadi sent to Medical Officer for conducting Post-Mortem
10 58 Post-Mortem Report
         Yadi sent to Medical Officer for Medical Examination of
11 60
         Accused
12 61 Medical Examination Certificate of Accused
13 64 Muddamal Dispatch Note
14 65 FSL Receipt for Muddamal Received
15 66 Biological Examination Report
16 67 Serological Report
17 68 Toxicology / Poison Examination Report
         Notification by District Magistrate regarding Arms
18 72
         Prohibition



6.      Learned advocates appearing for the appellants–accused
Ajaybhai alias Bodko Rameshbhai Vasava and Pintubhai alias Kaliyo
Dolubhai Vasava have vehemently submitted that the impugned


                                Page 5 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained.
They contended that the prosecution case rests entirely on
circumstantial evidence with no eye-witness to the actual incident.
The complainant Mograben has not seen the occurrence and only
discovered the body the next morning. It was urged that the chain
of circumstances is incomplete and broken at several points. In
particular, the last seen together circumstance, based on the
testimonies of PW-12 Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava at Exh.45
and PW-14 Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava at Exh.47, is unreliable
due to unnatural conduct of the witnesses passive non-intervention
despite         seeing   an    elderly   woman       in   distress,     material
contradictions between police statements and court depositions,
possible tutoring or improvement, and non-examination of a
material companion witness Haribhai Nagarbhai Vasava.



6.1      Further, several panch witnesses turned hostile, limiting
corroboration of recovery panchnama.



6.2      The recovery of the sickle - datardu at the instance of the
accused and presence of deceased’s blood on it and on the
accused’s clothes, while incriminating, do not conclusively prove
that      the     appellants   committed      the   murder,    as     alternative
explanations cannot be ruled out in the absence of a complete
chain excluding reasonable hypothesis of innocence.



6.3      In view of these submissions, it was prayed that the
conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court
cannot be sustained and the appeals be allowed by setting aside
the same.




                                    Page 6 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




6.4      Learned advocates also vehemently relied upon several
authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to contend
that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and
unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain the
conviction for murder beyond reasonable doubt. They have placed
reliance on the following decisions:

         (a) Shambhu Choudhary v. State of Bihar where the Apex
Court emphasized that in cases based purely on circumstantial
evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly proved, and mere
suspicion or incomplete circumstances cannot lead to conviction.

         (b) Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi)
reiterating that incriminating circumstances must be put to the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in a meaningful manner, and
failure to do so vitiates reliance on such circumstances.

         (c) Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi holding that if any
incriminating            circumstance     appearing      in      evidence        is   not
specifically put to the accused, it cannot be used against him.

         (d) Tara Singh v. State underscoring that circumstantial
evidence must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and
inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis.

         (e) Vinodgar Rameshgar Jivangar Goswami Bavaji v.
State of Gujarat clarifying that in circumstantial cases, the
prosecution must prove that the circumstances are incompatible
with the innocence of the accused.

         (f) Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh observing that
a     confessional        or   self-incriminating      FIR     by    an    accused        is
inadmissible as substantive evidence against him except to a
limited extent under Sections 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act, and
conviction cannot rest solely on such inadmissible material.



                                        Page 7 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




         (g) Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala                     reinforcing the five
golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, that the chain of circumstances must be fully
established, complete, and point unerringly to the guilt of the
accused alone.

         (h) Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha holding that the 'last
seen together' theory alone is insufficient for conviction in a purely
circumstantial           case   unless     corroborated         by    other    clinching
evidence, and a broken or incomplete chain entitles the accused to
the benefit of reasonable doubt.



6.5      It was strenuously urged that the present case suffers from
similar infirmities unreliable 'last seen' evidence, doubtful Section
27 recovery, hostile panch witnesses, and lack of corroborative
links rendering the prosecution's chain broken and incomplete,
warranting acquittal in line with the principles laid down in the
aforesaid judgments.



7.       Opposing the contentions, learned APP for the State, while
stoutly defending the impugned judgment and order of the Sessions
Court, submitted that the conviction rests on a robust chain of
circumstantial evidence fully satisfying the principles laid down by
the      Hon’ble         Supreme     Court       for    cases    based        solely     on
circumstantial           evidence.   He       highlighted       the    following       key
circumstances:

         (i) the last seen together circumstance stands proved through
the testimonies of independent village witnesses Harshadbhai
Panchiyabhai Vasava and Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava, who saw
both accused with the deceased Parvatiben near the Kim River
bridge in the late afternoon and evening of 28.09.2014, observed


                                         Page 8 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




her in a helpless condition, and heard the accused falsely claiming
she had merely “fallen” while they were “pulling her out”;

         (ii) the dead body was recovered the very next morning from
the identical spot under the tamarind tree, bearing multiple deep
incised wounds on the neck inflicted by a sharp cutting weapon;
         (iii)    the    post-mortem       report      at   Exh.58     unequivocally
establishes death from hemorrhage and traumatic shock due to
these injuries, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death and consistent with the recovered sickle – datardu;

         (iv) the sickle was recovered at the instance of the accused
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, corroborated by
panchnama and witnesses;

         (v) the FSL report confirms the presence of the deceased’s
blood group on the seized sickle and on the clothes of the accused;

         (vi) clear motive and prior conduct under Section 8 of the
Evidence         Act     are   proved     through      complainant        Mograben’s
testimony at Exh.49 regarding repeated harassment, indecent
demands, abuses, molestation, and explicit death threats hours
before the incident; and

         (vii) the accused offered no plausible explanation in their
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to account for the deceased
being last seen with them, the blood stains, the recovery, or their
conduct.



7.1      He therefore submitted that the prosecution has successfully
established the chain of circumstances and the learned Sessions
Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 302 read
with Section 114 IPC. The learned APP candidly conceded that
there is no direct eye-witness to the assault and the case depends



                                        Page 9 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




wholly on circumstantial evidence. However, he maintained that
the      proved          circumstances      form      a    complete     chain     pointing
unerringly to the guilt of the appellants and that no other
hypothesis consistent with innocence survives.


8.       Having heard the learned advocates for the appellants–
accused and the learned APP for the State, and having carefully
considered the entire evidence on record, the findings of the
learned Sessions Court, the chain of circumstantial evidence, the
nature of the incident, and the rival submissions, this Court is of
the       considered            opinion    that      while    certain      incriminating
circumstances are proved including the last seen circumstance
based on the claimed to have been testimonies of PW-12
Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava at Exh.45 and PW-14 Kantubhai
Chhanabhai Vasava at Exh.47, recovery of the sickle at the instance
of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
medical evidence of fatal neck injuries consistent with a sharp
weapon         like       the    sickle,   FSL      corroboration      confirming       the
deceased’s blood group on the weapon and on the clothes of the
accused, and prior motive from harassment and threats deposed by
the complainant Mograben at Exh.49 the chain is not fully
complete, continuous, and unbreakable so as to exclude every
reasonable possibility consistent with the innocence of the accused
or to establish their guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt.


8.1      The last seen witnesses conduct is highly unnatural and
improbable passive non-intervention upon seeing a woman in
distress, acceptance of a dubious explanation without verification
or assistance, contradictions between police statements and
depositions suggesting possible improvement or tutoring, and non-
examination of a material companion witnesses namely PW-12



                                           Page 10 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava at Exh.45 and PW-14 Kantubhai
Chhanabhai Vasava at Exh.47 which casts serious doubt on the
reliability and spontaneity of their evidence as a conclusive link.
Several panch witnesses turned hostile, weakening corroboration
of recovery and seizure details.


8.2.     While the recovery of the sickle and blood stains create
strong suspicion, they do not, in isolation or combination,
conclusively prove that the appellants alone committed the fatal
assault, particularly in the absence of direct ocular evidence of the
occurrence and given the isolated nature of the spot with no
independent eyewitness to the act itself. The prosecution has not
discharged           the    burden       of   proving    a    complete        chain       of
circumstances              where   all    links    are   firmly    established        and
incompatible with any hypothesis of innocence.


9.       The record demonstrates that the key links last seen by
witnesses whose reliability raises grave doubts due to unnatural
conduct, inconsistencies, and selective examination; recovery and
FSL evidence linking the accused to the weapon and blood; and
motive from prior harassment undoubtedly create strong suspicion
against the appellants but fall short of excluding reasonable doubt
regarding their exclusive involvement in the murder or the absence
of any alternative explanation consistent with innocence. The
prosecution has miserably failed to prove an unbroken chain
pointing unerringly and solely to the guilt of the appellants for the
offence under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC. In these
circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned
Sessions Court cannot be sustained.


10.      From the evidence on record, particularly the post-mortem



                                         Page 11 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




report at Exh-58 and the testimony of the Medical Officer including
Dr. Ashwinbhai Katara’s examination, it clearly emerges that the
deceased Parvatiben had sustained multiple deep incised wounds
and injuries around the neck region, measuring variously in
horizontal orientation with clearly definable edges and margins,
exposing internal structures, and accompanied by peeling of skin
on adjacent areas forehead, cheeks, ears, clavicle, etc., leading to
profuse hemorrhage and traumatic shock. The injuries were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death by
cessation of heart and respiratory functions due to hemorrhage and
shock.


10.1. The Medical Officer has opined that these injuries could be
caused by a sickle (datardu), and the muddamal weapon recovered
was identified as capable of inflicting such wounds. Although the
defence suggested alternative explanations the scene panchnama,
recovery evidence, and FSL report confirming deceased’s blood
group on the sickle and accused’s clothes rule out such pleas and
establish that the assault was carried out with considerable force.
However, the medical evidence does not conclusively establish an
intention to cause death, but it clearly demonstrates knowledge
that such acts were likely to cause death or at least serious bodily
harm of a kind likely to result in death.


11.      The prosecution has examined several witnesses, including
the complainant Mograben (daughter of the deceased) at Exh. 49,
independent witnesses Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava at Exh.
45 and Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava at Exh.47, Abheysing
Budhiyabhai              at   Exh.51,   the    investigating   officers,     medical
witnesses, and panch witnesses. On perusal of their entire
testimonies read together with the medical evidence, the factum of



                                        Page 12 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




the deceased being last seen alive with the accused in the field, has
not been established and proceed merely because the dead body
being recovered the next morning from the same spot with fatal
neck injuries as claimed by witness is not sufficient to point finger
against accused in absence of link of chain of circumstances as
claimed by the prosecution. The manner in which the occurrence
took place is that the accused, enraged by the deceased’s refusal
and warning, assaulted her with the sickle while she was alone
fetching grass. Due to the isolated nature of the spot and absence
of immediate eyewitnesses to the actual assault, no direct ocular
account of the fatal blows exists. Immediately thereafter, the
accused left the scene, and the body was discovered the following
morning. Thus, the prosecution witnesses, when their depositions
are read together with the medical, recovery, and FSL evidence,
indicate that the death of the deceased was not natural but a
culpable         homicide.       However,     the      question    which      requires
consideration, in view of the entire evidence on record, is as to how
and under what circumstances the deceased came to die so also the
involvement of the accused in occurrence.


12.      It transpires that the prosecution in support of its case has
examined numerous witnesses; however, out of the said witnesses,
the      one     is      the   complainant   Mograben,       who     claimed      prior
harassment, threats, and the recovery of the body, and the last
seen witnesses Harshadbhai and Kantubhai, who sought to
established the crucial circumstantial link. Thus, no eyewitness saw
the actual assault, and several panch witnesses turned hostile,
limiting direct corroboration of seizure/recovery details.


13.      It transpires from the entire material placed for consideration
that the cause behind the incident, as per the case of the



                                       Page 13 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




prosecution, is the harassment of the deceased by the accused,
their repeated indecent demands, abuses, molestation, and explicit
death threat given just hours before the fatal assault when
Parvatiben warned of informing the Sarpanch. The theory of the
prosecution that the accused acted with common intention to
murder finds support in the chain of circumstances, but upon closer
scrutiny, the sudden provocation arising from the deceased’s
resistance in an isolated setting, absence of premeditation, and
impulsive use of the weapon at the spot itself create sufficient
doubt regarding the existence of specific intention to cause death.


14.      The complainant Mograben at Exh.49, daughter of the
deceased Parvatiben, was examined as a key witness by the
prosecution. She deposed that the accused persons, Ajaybhai alias
Bodko Ramesh bhai Vasava and Pintubhai alias Kaliyo Dolubhai
Vasava, had been persistently                  harassing her mother                for a
considerable period. They frequently visited the house of the
deceased, made indecent demands/advances for immoral/sexual
acts, teased and molested her, and abused her in filthy language in
her presence as well as that of others. Specifically, on the night of
27.09.2014, both accused came to their house and, after entering,
continued their teasing and abusive behaviour towards Parvatiben.
When Parvatiben strongly objected and warned them that she
would inform the village Sarpanch about their conduct, the accused
became enraged and explicitly threatened her by saying, “If you
inform the Sarpanch, we will kill you.”


14.1 The          witness   further    stated         that   on   28.09.2014,       upon
returning home after work, she again found both accused present
at the house, abusing her mother. Parvatiben repeated her
warning, leading to the same death threat from the accused before


                                      Page 14 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                        JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




they left. Later that day, when Parvatiben failed to return after
going to fetch grass, the witness searched for her and, the next
morning, discovered her mother’s dead body under the tamarind
tree near the Kim River bridge with severe wounds on the neck and
blood oozing. She identified the body and immediately lodged the
complaint, which formed the basis of Crime Registration No. First
79/2014 at Valiya Police Station. Her testimony do not explicitly
establishes a clear motive, prior conduct, and explicit threats given
just hours before the incident as credible and consistent so as to
establish the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against the
appellants.


15.      PW-12 Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava at Exh.45 cited as
an independent villager, was examined and his testimony was
intended to prove a crucial link in the circumstantial chain through
the last-seen-together circumstance. He stated that on 28.09.2014,
while proceeding with his tempo to fill diesel, he passed near the
bridge over the Kim River and saw both the accused pulling
Parvatiben. Becoming suspicious, he questioned them directly:
“What are you doing?” The accused replied that she had fallen and
they were pulling her out. He did not witness the actual assault or
murder but observed the accused with the deceased in a helpless
or fallen condition at that location during the late afternoon. The
next morning, the dead body of Parvatiben was recovered from
almost the identical spot under the tamarind tree on the river bank,
bearing fatal injuries on the neck. However, this Court finds it
highly unnatural and improbable that an ordinary villager, upon
seeing an elderly woman known to him as Parvatikaki being
physically pulled or handled by two persons in a suspicious manner
and appearing helpless or fallen, would merely ask “What are you
doing?” and accept the explanation that “she had fallen and we are



                              Page 15 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




pulling her out” without making any further attempt to ascertain
her condition, offer assistance, or at least proceed closer to the
spot to verify the situation.


15.1 Instead, the witness simply continued on his way without any
intervention, reporting, or follow up action at that moment. This
unnatural manner raises serious doubt about the presence of this
witnesses as claimed therein which loses the spontaneity and
genuineness of his testimony. The defence’s suggestion that the
witness was a daily employer of Parvatiben for fetching grass and
wood, and yet did not act in a manner consistent with concern for a
known labourer in apparent distress, the possibility that he has
been got up or tutored later as a witness cannot be ruled out. The
discrepancies            in   his   police   statement   and   court     deposition
regarding time and exact description of the location further weaken
the reliability of this evidence.


16.      PW-14 Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava at Exh.47 cited as
another independent villager and the Sarpanch of the village, was
examined to corroborate the last-seen-together circumstance. He
deposed that on 28.09.2014 around 6:30 p.m., while passing near
the Kim River bridge, he saw both accused with Parvatiben. Upon
noticing their suspicious activity, he asked: “What are you doing?”
The accused responded that Parvatiben had fallen and they were
pulling her out, even pointing towards him and saying “this one
person,” implying they were aware of his presence as a witness.
Like Harshadbhai, he did not see the fatal assault but observed the
accused physically interacting with the deceased in a helpless state
at the precise location. The dead body was recovered the following
morning from under the tamarind tree in the same vicinity. This
Court, however, finds the conduct of this witness highly unnatural,



                                         Page 16 of 27
   R/CR.A/1027/2017                              JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




improbable, and suspicious. As the Sarpanch of a small village
where everyone knows each other and where Parvatiben was a
resident, seeing an elderly woman from his own village in a fallen
or helpless condition, being handled by two persons who offered a
questionable explanation (“she has fallen, we are pulling her out”),
and yet restricting his reaction to merely asking “What are you
doing?” without making any attempt to approach the spot, check on
Parvatiben’s condition, offer assistance, summon help, or even
raise an immediate alarm is wholly inconsistent with the expected
behaviour of a responsible villager, let alone the Sarpanch whose
duty it is to protect and assist fellow villagers in distress. The fact
that he continued on his way without taking any further action,
despite being fully aware of the unusual and potentially serious
situation involving a woman in apparent peril, casts grave doubt on
the truthfulness and spontaneity of his version.



16.1 Moreover, the record reveals that Kantubhai was in the
company of another witness, Haribhai Nagarbhai Vasava, at or
around the relevant time, as per the investigation notes and
statements.       However,   Haribhai     Nagarbhai     Vasava    was     not
examined on oath before the court, despite his statement having
been recorded by the Investigating Officer.



16.2 The non-examination of this accompanying person, who could
have independently corroborated or contradicted Kantubhai’s
presence, conduct, and version at the spot, creates a significant
lacuna    and raises    a strong     inference   that    the prosecution
selectively examined only those witnesses who supported their
narrative while deliberately withholding a material witness who
might have exposed inconsistencies. The defence has rightly



                                Page 17 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




pointed out contradictions between Kantubhai’s police statement
and his court testimony, including the emergence of additional
details        in        court,   which      suggest      possible     improvement,
embellishment, or tutoring.



16.3 In these circumstances, the possibility that Kantubhai has
been got up as a witness to bolster the prosecution’s last-seen-
together theory cannot be ignored, and his evidence does not
inspire the full confidence required to treat it as a reliable and
conclusive link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.


17.      The combined testimony of PW-12 Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai
Vasava and PW-14 Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava was heavily
relied upon by the sessions court to establish that the deceased
was last seen in the company of the accused at or near the spot
where her body was recovered the next morning. While their
accounts are mutually corroborative on the broad fact of sighting
the accused with Parvatiben in a suspicious situation, the glaring
common feature in both depositions is the complete absence of any
effort to render assistance, verify the deceased’s condition, or take
immediate steps despite seeing an elderly woman in apparent
distress. In a small village setting where people know each other,
such passive and detached behaviour upon witnessing a potentially
serious situation is highly unnatural and improbable. This conduct,
coupled with the material contradictions highlighted by the defence
in their police statements vis-à-vis court depositions, raises a
strong inference these witnesses might have been got up or their
statements improved subsequently to fit the prosecution narrative.
In the absence of any independent corroboration of their presence
at the relevant time and place, and considering the overall
suspicious nature of their non-intervention, this Court is not


                                          Page 18 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




inclined to place implicit reliance on their testimonies as conclusive
proof of the last-seen-together circumstance beyond reasonable
doubt. The chain of circumstantial evidence, therefore, suffers from
a serious weakness at this vital link.


18.        During the course of the investigation, one of the accused
persons was medically examined by the concerned doctor. Upon
examination, the doctor observed certain injuries on the private
parts of the said accused. The Medical Officer, in his opinion
recorded and deposed before the Court, opined that these injuries
were       consistent      with    and      possible     due    to    forcible     sexual
intercourse. This medical finding does not assumes significance in
the context of the prosecution's case alleging sexual harassment
preceding the fatal assault, the prosecution did not frame or prove
in absence of a specific charge under Section 376 IPC. The defence,
however, contested the reliability of this opinion, submitting that
such injuries could arise from various other causes and do not
conclusively establish commission of rape or link the same directly
to the death of the deceased Parvatiben. This Court has taken note
of     this     evidence    while       appreciating      the    overall       chain    of
circumstances but finds that it does not fill the gaps in the
prosecution's case so as to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.


19.      Further, the recovery of the sickle (datardu), the alleged
weapon of offence, at the instance of the accused under Section 27
of     the    Indian     Evidence       Act    deserves    careful         scrutiny.   The
prosecution relied heavily on the discovery panchnama to establish
that the sickle was produced by the accused from a concealed
place known only to them, thereby providing a direct link between
the      appellants      and      the   crime.       However,        the    foundational
requirement of a proved discovery at the instance of the accused


                                         Page 19 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                          JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




remains unestablished, particularly when the panch witnesses to
the recovery turned hostile and did not support the prosecution
version regarding the manner, place, or voluntariness of the
recovery. This Court is therefore constrained to hold that the
recovery under Section 27 cannot be accepted as a reliable
circumstance pointing to the guilt of the appellants.



20.      As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan
vs. Hanuman 2025 SC 691, mere recovery of a blood-stained
weapon matching the deceased’s blood group is not, by itself,
sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC in the
absence of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.


21.      The prosecution’s case is further weakened by the fact that a
large number of panch witnesses examined in relation to various
panchnamas including the scene of offence panchnama, inquest
panchnama, recovery panchnama of the sickle, and seizure of
clothes from the accused turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution narrative in material particulars. Their hostility is not
merely formal; several panchas resiled from their earlier police
statements and denied having witnessed the proceedings as
recorded or having affixed their signatures or thumb impressions
voluntarily.


21.1 In a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the
corroborative value of contemporaneous panchnamas prepared in
the presence of independent witnesses is of critical importance.
The turning hostile of these panch witnesses creates a substantial
lacuna in the prosecution evidence and renders the recoveries and
seizures suspect.



                                Page 20 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




22.      The learned Sessions Court appears to have undervalued this
aspect while placing reliance on the FSL report and post-mortem
findings alone, in absence of other cogent and clinching material
which appears to believing in case on hand.


23.      Even assuming that the FSL report establishes the presence
of human blood of the deceased’s group on the sickle and on the
clothes        of        the   accused,     such          scientific    evidence,       while
incriminating, is corroborative in nature and cannot stand alone to
prove the offence of murder when the primary links in the
circumstantial             chain   particularly            the   last    seen      together
circumstance and the Section 27 recovery suffer from serious
infirmities and reasonable doubts. The presence of blood stains,
without a proved exclusive possession or conclusively established
recovery            process,       permits         reasonable           possibilities         of
contamination, secondary transfer, or other explanations consistent
with innocence. In the absence of any direct evidence connecting
the accused to the actual commission of the assault, and given the
gaps highlighted above, the FSL report does not bridge the
evidentiary void so as to complete the chain beyond reasonable
doubt.


24.      Taking an overall view of the matter, the prosecution has
succeeded in creating suspicion against the appellants through
motive from prior harassment and threats, medical evidence of
fatal neck injuries, scientific evidence of blood on weapon and
clothes, and partial circumstantial links. However, suspicion,
however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The chain of
circumstances remains broken at vital points: the unreliable and
unnatural last seen testimonies, the non-corroboration by hostile
panch witnesses, the doubtful Section 27 recovery, the absence of



                                          Page 21 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                         JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




any direct evidence of the assault, and the failure to rule out
reasonable alternative hypotheses. In these circumstances, the
prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellants for the
offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section
114 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The
conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court therefore cannot
be upheld.


25.      The learned sessions court, after appreciating the evidence
led by the prosecution, held that the case rested entirely on
circumstantial evidence, there being no direct eyewitness to the
actual assault. It placed heavy reliance on the 'Last Seen Together'
theory, primarily through the testimonies of PW-12 Harshadbhai
Panchiyabhai Vasava (Exh.45) and PW-14 Kantubhai Chhanabhai
Vasava (Exh.47), who claimed to have seen both accused with the
deceased Parvatiben near the Kim River bridge on the evening of
28.09.2014, in a situation where she appeared to have “fallen” and
the accused were “pulling her out”. The sessions court observed
that the dead body was recovered the next morning from the very
same spot under the tamarind tree, with fatal incised wounds on
the neck, and concluded that the deceased was last seen alive in
the company of the accused. The sessions court further noted that
the accused offered no explanation whatsoever in their statements
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding this circumstance, and held
that failure to explain the 'last seen' situation went against them.


26.      As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indrakunwar vs.
The State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SC 932, even though the
accused may choose to remain silent during examination under
Section 313 CrPC, such silence or refusal to answer cannot be used
against the accused to draw an adverse inference leading to



                               Page 22 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                               JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




conviction, particularly in the absence of other complete and
clinching circumstantial evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.


27.      The learned sessions court appears to have erred in
conceding the motive and prior conduct as proved through the
testimony of the complainant Mograben at Exh.49, who deposed
about repeated harassment, indecent demands, filthy abuses,
molestation, and explicit death threats given by the accused on
27.09.2014 and again on the morning of 28.09.2014.


28.      This Court finds it apposite to observe that the principles
governing appreciation of evidence in cases resting solely on
circumstantial evidence have been authoritatively laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of binding decisions, which are
squarely attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present
case. In Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha, the Apex Court has
reiterated:
              “10. It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial
              evidence, the prosecution is obliged to prove each
              circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete
              that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
              human probabilities, crime was committed by the accused and
              none else. Further, the facts so proved should unerringly point
              towards the guilt of the accused.”



28.1 Similarly, in Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Another,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized the necessity of a clear
and complete delineation of the chain:

              “29. The Courts have undertaken an examination of the
              testimonies of the witnesses but has omitted to delineate the
              inferences derivable therefrom. Moreover, they failed to
              expound upon how the prosecution has succeeded in
              construction an unbroken chain of circumstances that
              irrefutable establishes the culpability of the accused to the
              exclusion of any other hypothesis.”


                                    Page 23 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                              JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




28.2 Further, in Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh,
dealing specifically with the evidentiary value of recoveries under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act when panch witnesses turn
hostile, the Supreme Court held:

              “29. Most of the panch witnesses turned hostile. If at all, the
              public prosecutor wanted to prove the contents of the
              panchnamas after the panch witnesses turned hostile, he could
              have done so through the evidence of the investigating officer.
              However, the investigating officer also failed to prove the
              contents of the panchnamas in accordance with law. Thus,
              there is nothing on record by way of evidence relating to any
              discovery of fact is concerned. In other words, no discovery of
              fact at the instance of the appellant, relevant and admissible
              under Section 27 of the Act of 1872, has been established.”


29.      Applying these settled principles to the facts on record, this
Court finds that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving each
incriminating circumstance with the degree of certainty required.
The 'last seen together' circumstance remains vitiated by serious
doubts as to the reliability and spontaneity of the testimonies of
PW-12 Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava and PW-14 Kantubhai
Chhanabhai Vasava. The recovery of the sickle under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act is materially weakened by the hostility of the
panch witnesses and the absence of proper corroboration through
independent evidence of the Investigating Officer in accordance
with law.



29.1 The FSL report, though showing blood of the deceased’s
group, cannot cure these foundational defects when the chain itself
is incomplete and permits reasonable hypotheses consistent with
innocence.



29.2 In the absence of a complete and unbroken chain that
unerringly points to the guilt of the appellants to the exclusion of


                                   Page 24 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                               JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




all others, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of
proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt.



30.      The learned sessions court further took into account the
medical examination of accused Ajaybhai alias Bodko Rameshbhai
Vasava by Dr. Sinha, who found abrasions and stretch marks on the
scrotum, opining that such injuries were possible due to forcible
sexual intercourse. The sessions court treated this as corroborative
of the prosecution’s allegation of persistent sexual harassment and
molestation, though no specific charge under Section 376 IPC was
framed or proved. The sessions court also noted that several panch
witnesses, including those to the seizure of clothes at Exh.26 and
related memos, turned hostile, merely identifying their signatures
on prepared panchnamas without supporting the prosecution
version, but erred in holding that this did not materially affect the
chain when viewed with other proved circumstances.


31.      However, this Court, on re-appreciation of the entire record
in appeal, finds that the sessions court fell into error in concluding
that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and
unbreakable. The trial court’s heavy reliance on the 'Last Seen
Together' theory is vitiated by the serious infirmities discussed in
above the highly unnatural and improbable passive conduct of both
key      witnesses,      material   contradictions   between      their    police
statements and court depositions, suggestions of improvement or
tutoring, non-examination of material companion witness Haribhai
Nagarbhai Vasava, and the defence suggestion that Harshadbhai
was a regular employer of the deceased yet failed to act
consistently with concern. These factors render their evidence
unreliable and insufficient to conclusively establish the vital 'last
seen' link beyond reasonable doubt.


                                     Page 25 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




32.      Moreover, the sessions court’s acceptance of the Section 27
recovery and related panchnamas overlooks the fact that the
majority of panch witnesses turned hostile and did not corroborate
the      prosecution      version    regarding         the     manner,       place,       or
voluntariness of the recovery of the sickle or seizure of clothes.
Mere identification of signatures on prepared panchnamas by
hostile      panchas      cannot    substitute       for   independent        proof       of
discovery at the instance of the accused. In the absence of reliable
panch corroboration, the evidentiary value of Section 27 recovery
is materially weakened, and the FSL report, while showing blood of
the deceased’s group, loses much of its probative force when the
foundational link of proved exclusive possession is doubtful. The
sessions court’s finding that the chain remained complete despite
these hostilities and gaps is not sustainable.


33.      The learned sessions court also appears to have placed undue
weight on the motive and prior threats without adequately
addressing          the   defence    contention        that     the     complainant’s
testimony contained contradictions regarding dates, times, and
sequence vis-à-vis the FIR, and that the harassment narrative was
not independently corroborated beyond hearsay or interested
witnesses. The medical opinion of Dr. Sinha regarding injuries on
accused Ajaybhai, while suggestive of possible forcible sexual
activity, remains inconclusive and extraneous to the proved cause
of death, as no charge of rape or attempt was framed, and the
prosecution did not establish a direct nexus to the fatal assault.

34.      In the ultimate analysis, the prosecution has established
certain incriminating circumstances creating strong suspicion
against the appellants, but the chain suffers from critical breaks
and reasonable doubts at multiple points unreliable last-seen
evidence, hostile panch witnesses, doubtful Section 27 recovery,


                                     Page 26 of 27
      R/CR.A/1027/2017                                                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




absence of direct ocular account, and failure to exclude alternative
hypotheses consistent with innocence. Suspicion, however grave,
cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The learned
Sessions court erred in holding that the circumstantial chain
pointed unerringly and solely to the guilt of the appellants for
murder under Section 302 r/w 114 IPC. The conviction and
sentence cannot therefore be sustained.


35.        In the result, both Criminal Appeals are allowed. The
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
21.01.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No. 21/2015 is hereby set aside. The
appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 r/w 114
IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. They shall be set at
liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.
Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.


                                                                                                (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 12/02/2026 16:50:08




                                                           Page 27 of 27