STATE OF GUJARATversusDEVANAND @ DEVKO PUNJA BHATU

     R/CR.A/1492/2003                            JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                    R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1492 of 2003

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
                   DEVANAND @ DEVKO PUNJA BHATU & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,4
MR A. U. SAPHIYA(9891) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5
MR MAHESHB BARIYA(2234) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
                       Date : 03/03/2026
                     ORAL JUDGMENT
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)


1.      Here is the Appeal by the State against the judgment and order of
acquittal.

2.      Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar, passed in Sessions Case No.19 of
2002, dated 25.04.2003, acquitting the respondent from the offence
under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and
Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the State has preferred instant
appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.




                                 Page 1 of 12
     R/CR.A/1492/2003                           JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




3.      This Court has heard Mr.Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the appellant – State, Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate
appearing for the original complainant, Mr.Mahesh Bariya, learned
advocate, Mr.A.U. Vohra, learned advocate for Mr.M.M. Tirmizi,
learned advocate appearing for and on behalf of the respondents
accused.

4.      We may take the notice of the fact that the principal accused
Devnand Bhatu (A1) and accused no.4 Ramesh @ Ranmal Vira,
passed away during the pendecy of the appeal proceedings and appeal
qua them stands abated.

5.      Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, the
accused A1 Devanand Bhatu had a dispute of local body election with
deceased Parbat Karshan and in order to take revenge the election
result, on 17.11.2001, the deceased was taken to farm situated at
Village Kotda by the accused no.1 on his motorbike and then he was
killed with the weapon skyth by the accused no.1 and after killing, his
dead body with the help of accused nos.2 to 4, was being buried in the
same farm. On the basis of missing complaint, the Porbandar Police
was having suspicion on the accused A1 as the deceased was lastly
seen in the company of A1 by witness Khimanand Nebha and on that
basis, the entire incident was unearth and accordingly, on the basis of
the FIR, the accused were arrested and dead body was exhumed from
the farm where it was buried and after completion of investigation, the
chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate came to be filed. The case
was committed to the Court of Sessions at Porbandar.


                                Page 2 of 12
     R/CR.A/1492/2003                             JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




6.      The learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar framed charge under
Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 135
of the Bombay Police Act, against the accused to which, they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.

7.      In the course of trial, the prosecution adduced the following oral
as well as documentary evidence in support of his case:


     Oral evidence - 20
     PW 1 – Exh.11        Karshanbhai Sidabhai, complainant
     PW 2 – Exh.16        Ramsinh Hajabhai Farangiya
     PW 3 – Exh.18        Rajabhai Gigabhai
     PW 4 – Exh.19        Ramabhai Devayatbhai
     PW 5 – Exh.31        Virabhai Markhibhai
     PW 6 – Exh.33        Arjanbhai Govindbhai Bhaat
     PW 7 – Exh.38        Maldevbhai Karshanbhai
     PW 8 – Exh.39        Janziben w/o Parbatbhai
     PW 9 – Exh.40        Arjanbhai Kheemabhai
     PW 10 – Exh.41       Kheemanandbhai Nebhabhai Bhetariya
     PW 11 – Exh.42       Vajshibhai Arjanbhai
     PW 12 – Exh.43       Pithabhai Parbatbhai
     PW 13 – Exh.44       Lakhmanbhai Bodabhai
     PW 14 – Exh.50       Dilipbhai Vastabhai
     PW 15 – Exh.51       Chimanbhai Naranbhai Sagathiya
     PW 16 – Exh.71       Hasmuhrai Shantilal Bharthi
     PW 17 – Exh.73       Kheemabhai Jagmalbhai Maru
     PW 18 – Exh.78       Rakhalchandra Gokeshchandra
     PW 19 – Exh.81       Babulal Maniram Pawar
     PW 20 – Exh.88       Vikramsinh Hasrathsinh Gohel, IO

     Documentary evidence - 65
      Exh.12    Complaint
      Exh.13    Missing poster of deceased issued by complainant
      Exh.17    Panchnama of recovery of body
      Exh.20    Panchnama of place of offence
      Exh.21    Panchnama of state of body of accused Devanand Punja and


                                 Page 3 of 12
R/CR.A/1492/2003                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




                   arrest panchnama
 Exh.22            Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused Devanand
                   Punja
 Exh.23            Arrest panchnama of accused Rama Devshi
 Exh.24            Panchnama of blood sample of accused Devanand
 Exh.25            Panchnama of state of body of accused and arrest
                   panchnama
 Exh.26            Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused
 Exh.27            Panchnama of blood sample of accused
 Ehx.28            Police yadi of collection and forwarding of blood sample of
                   accused to medical officer
 Exh.29-30         Medical treatment certificate by medical officer Kutiyana
 Exh.32            Panchnama of recovery of weapons used in offence
 Exh.34            Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused and recovery
                   of motorcycle used in offence
 Exh.35            Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused Rama devshi
 Exh.36            Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused Punja Limshi
 Exh.37            Panchnama of recovery of clothes of deceased and blood
                   sample of deceased
 Exh.45            Forwarding of case papers to PSI LCB Porbandar Yadi
 Exh.46            VHF message
 Exh.47            Investigation yadi
 Exh.48            Missing report
 Exh.49            Police yadi to SDM, Porbandar for inspection of dead body
 Exh.52            Police yadi
 Exh.53            Police yadi
 Exh.54-56         Copy of sample from village no. 8A, GA.N.NO 7-12 and
                   GA.N.NO 6
 Exh.58            Letter from SDM Porbandar to exhume the deceased body
 Exh.59            Yadi to medical officers to be present at place of exhume
 Exh.60            Copy of application no. 25/2001 at Police station in ‘B’
                   register
 Exh.61            Copy of application no. 34/2001 at Police station in ‘B’
                   register
 Exh.62            List of articles found from body of deceased during PM
 Exh.63            PSI LCB letter regarding non conducting of PM at Kutiyana
                   and transferring to Jamnagar Gurugovind Singh Hospital
 Exh.64            Receipt f body after conducting of PM
 Exh.65            Medical officer yadi to PI LCB regarding collecting of
                   blood sample of accused Devanand Punja and Rama devshi
                   and forwarding the same


                                  Page 4 of 12
R/CR.A/1492/2003                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




 Exh.66            Police yadi for medical examination of accused
 Exh.67            Copy of entry no. 17/01 dated 19-12-01 from Kutiyana
                   police station
 Exh.68            Police yadi for map of place of offence
 Exh.69            FSL jamnagar yadi to PSI LCB regarding PM note and
                   blood sample of deceased
 Exh.70            Notice regarding ban on weapons
 Exh.72            Medical officer letter
 Exh.75            Map of place of offense
 Exh.76            Mamlatdar letter no. Magi./2157/01 dated 12/01
 Exh.77            Mamlatdar yadi for map of place of offence
 Exh.79            PM Note
 Exh.82            Missing register entry copy
 Exh.83            Copy of entry no.15 dated 18-12-01 from Kutiyana police
                   station
 Exh.84            Special report
 Exh.85            Copy of missing register no. 3/01 from Kutiyana police
                   station
 Exh.89            Police yadi
 Exh.90            Death form
 Exh.91            Police yadi regarding transferring of body to Jamnagar
 Exh.92            Police yadi
 Exh.93            Place of offence report conducted by Mobile Forensic
                   laboratory
 Exh.94            Police yadi to FSL
 Exh.95            Articles forwarding notes
 Exh.96            FSL yadi
 Exh.97-98         Receipt of samples by FSL
 Exh.99            Mamlatdar yadi regarding creating and forwarding of map
                   of place of offence
 Exh.100           FSL Junagadh report
 Exh.101           FSL report
 Exh.102           FSL report
 Exh.103           FSL report
 Exh.104           Forwarding letter
 Exh.105           Serological report
 Exh.106           IO report




                                 Page 5 of 12
      R/CR.A/1492/2003                               JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




8.       On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded further
statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code,
wherein, they claimed their innocence.


9.       The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating and examining the
oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the accused herein for
the offences with which they were charged, on the ground that, the
prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt and case based on the circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution failed to establish each instance of incriminating
circumstances by way of reliable and clinchin evidence and chain of
circumstances, pointing towards the guilt of the accused is not
complete. So far as charge of causing disappearance of evidence is
concerned, the learned Trial Court held that there is no iota of evidence
led by the prosecution to prove the charge under Section 201.


10.      In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this acquittal
appeal has been preferred by the State.


11.      In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the death
of the deceased Parbat was homicidal and there is no need to discuss
the medical evidence on this aspect. Thus, the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the facts that on or before 17.11.2001, the
deceased Parbat was died and his death was homicidal. It is relevant to
note that the principal accused Devanand Punja had a motive to kill the
deceased because of local body election. The facts remain that pending



                                   Page 6 of 12
      R/CR.A/1492/2003                           JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




the appeal, the accused no.1 Devanand Punja has passed away. In such
circumstances, we do not deem it appropriate to decide the charge of
murder as there was no charge against accused nos.2 to 5 for killing the
deceased Parbat. The only charge against them is the act of causing
disappearance of evidence as punishable under Section 201 of the IPC.

12.      Mr.Ronal Raval, learned APP and Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned
advocate have submitted that the findings of acquittal under Section
201 of the Indian Penal Code are contrary to law and evidence on
record and the findings recorded are palpably erroneous and based on
the irrelevant material. The dead body of the deceased found from the
farm of accused no.1. The accused nos.2 to 5 were in close association
with accused no.1 and they on an often assembled at the farm of
accused no.1 which clearly shows that respondents accused were
responsible for the act of disappearance of the evidence and in order to
screen the offence, the dead body was being buried by them.

13.      In such circumstances, as referred above, it has been submitted
that while acquitting the respondent accused, the trial Court has
discarded and ignored the truthful, reliable and acceptable evidence
and as such, no cogent reasons being assigned while discarding such
evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the conclusion of acquittal
recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and
upon erroneous understanding of law. Thus, it is prayed that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the
respondents accused and the judgment and order of acquittal be set
aside and accused may be convicted and sentenced for the offence as


                                 Page 7 of 12
      R/CR.A/1492/2003                          JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




referred above.

14.      Mr.A.U. Vohra, learned advocate appearing for the respondents
accused have submitted that the High Court in a case of Appeal against
the acquittal, can interfere only when there are compelling substantial
reasons for doing so and more particularly, the findings are without
reasons and unreasonable and contrary to the evidence. The entire
prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The respondents
accused had never been part of the crime committed by the accused
no.1. The presence of the accused at the time of the offence, was not
proved and established. Nothing incriminating found, connecting the
accused in the alleged offence of causing disappearance of evidence
and also no evidence to the effect that there was an intention on the
part of the respondents accused to screen the accused no.1. In such
circumstances, it is submitted that the findings of the acquittal are
based on the evidence and prosecution failed to prove the charge under
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

15.      In such circumstances, referred to above, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents accused, has submitted that the judgment
of acquittal passed is well reasoned, legally sustainable and does not
suffer any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

16.        Before proceeding to address the rival submissions, we would
like to place on record the scope of interference in an appeal against
the acquittal and when the same is justified. In exceptional cases,
where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under



                                 Page 8 of 12
      R/CR.A/1492/2003                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the
judgment of acquittal. The Appellate Court should bare in mind the
presence of innocence of the accused and further that, the trial Court’s
acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a
routine manner, where the other view of possible should be avoided,
unless there are reasons for interference.

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

18.      We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary
evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial
Court. We deem it appropriate to extract Section 201 of the Indian
Penal Code for better appreciation.

         “201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false
         information to screen offender.—
         Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has
         been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that
         offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from
         legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information
         respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false,
         if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes
         to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with
         imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
         seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
         if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is
         punishable with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment



                                     Page 9 of 12
      R/CR.A/1492/2003                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




         which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment
         of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and
         shall also be liable to fine;
         if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—and if the
         offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to
         ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description
         provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth
         part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence,
         or with fine, or with both.”


19.      A bare reading of Section 201 of the IPC, it appears that in order
to convict a person under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the
prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:

         (A)      That an offence has been committed;
         (B)      That the accused knew or had reason to believe the
         commission of such offence;
         (C)      That with such knowledge or belief, he/she;
         (i)      caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to
         disappear; or (ii) gave any information in respect thereof that offence
         which he or she knew or believed to be false;
         (D)      That he or she did so as aforesaid with the intention of
         screening the offender for legal punishment;

20.      We may profitable the judgment of Palvinder Kaur Vs. State of
Punjab (AIR 1952 Supreme Court 354), wherein the Supreme Court
had said that in order to establish the charge under Section 201 of IPC,
it is essentially to prove that an offence has been committed; that the
accused knew or had a reason to believe that such offence had been

                                         Page 10 of 12
      R/CR.A/1492/2003                            JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




committed; with requisite knowledge and with intent to screen the
offender from legal punishment, caused the evidence thereof to
disappear or gave a false information respecting such offence that the
Court should safeguard itself again the danger of basing its conclusion
on suspicion, however, strong they may be. In another case, Padmini
Mahendrabhai Gadda Vs. State of Gujarat (2017 (14) SCC 587),
the Supreme Court held that while considering the charge under
Section 201 of IPC, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove that
the accused actually participated in the offence of disappearance of
evidence, with an intention to screen the offender and it is necessary
that all ingredients of Section 201 are satisfied pointing out at the guilt
of the accused and mere a suspicion is not a sufficient and the accused
can never be convicted on the basis of probabilities or on assumptions
and presumptions.

21.      In light of the aforesaid statutory provision and the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, the issue required to be examined
whether the respondents accused nos.2 to 5 have committed the
offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.


22.      In the facts of the present case, the entire case rests on the
circumstantial evidence. The prosecution witnesses as well as police
official, have no personal knowledge about the presence of the accused
at the field and the prosecution failed to prove the necessary
circumstances to infer that the accused respondents were having
knowledge about the commission of the murder and despite of their
knowledge, they helped the principal accused in destroying the dead

                                Page 11 of 12
      R/CR.A/1492/2003                                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




body with an intention to screening the principal accused for legal
punishment.

23.       In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the charge
against the respondents accused under Section 201 of the Indian Penal
Code beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, therefore, the view of the Trial
Court is possible and plausible view and the Trial Court while
analyzing the evidence has assigned cogent and sound reasons and
findings of acquittal are reasonable and based on the evidence on
record and            we do not find any perversity in the findings of acquittal
so as to interfere. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court was
justified in acquitting the accused and we are in complete agreement
with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of acquittal
recorded by the Court below and hence finds no reason to interfere
with the same.

24.       With the observations as aforesaid, the appeal is accordingly
dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the R & P to the Trial
Court. Bail bonds are cancelled, if any, and surety is discharged.




                                                                                           (ILESH J. VORA,J)




                                                                                        (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Rakesh




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: RAKESH MAHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC00950), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/03/2026 14:27:18




                                                     Page 12 of 12