STATE OF GUJARATversusMOHANBHAI MEGHJIBHAI UKANI-PATEL

     R/CR.A/2039/2005                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2039 of 2005


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA                                    Sd/-

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI                                   Sd/-
==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting                  Yes          No
                                                                  No
==========================================================
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
                                 Versus
                 MOHANBHAI MEGHJIBHAI UKANI-PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

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

                                 Date : 06/02/2026

                                 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, passed in Sessions Case
No.54 of 1999, dated 29.04.2004, acquitting the respondents from the
offence under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 114 of the IPC.


                                     Page 1 of 7
     R/CR.A/2039/2005                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




3.      This Court has heard Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Param Buch, learned counsel for Mr.
Hriday Buch, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the
respondents-accused.


4.      At the outset, we may take notice of the fact that the principle
accused Mohan Ukani passed away on 25.11.2024 and the appeal qua
him stands abated.


5.      Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, due to
land dispute with regard to partition, the father was killed by throwing
him in the well situated at the farm itself. The said incident occurred on
29.11.1998 between 7 to 9 p.m. at Village: Juthal, Mangrol. There was
a dispute of equal partition of the agricultural land owned by the
deceased because the accused Mohan Ukani being a son, demanding
half of the share from the land which could not be possible because of
other siblings. Before 10 days of the incident, there was a dispute on
this aspect and despite of intervention of the Village Sarpanch and
others, the accused Mohan was adamant, as a result, the criminal
complaint against him came to be filed with Mangrol Police Station
and the complaint was not proceeded by the police. In the interregnum
period, the deceased father thrown into well and he was died. The
cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. The brother Vallabh
Meghji lodged an FIR as before the incident, deceased had informed
him that, there was a danger on his life because he was threatened by


                                  Page 2 of 7
     R/CR.A/2039/2005                              JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




the accused Mohanbhai. On the basis of FIR, the accused Mohanbhai
and his wife Vijyaben came to be arrested for the alleged offence of
murder. Upon due investigation of the case, the chargesheet came to be
filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was committed to
the court of sessions. The charges came to be framed by the sessions
court and after framing the charge, the trial court proceeded to record
the evidence of the witnesses. In order to prove the charge, the
prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 22
documents. The defense of the accused in their 313 statement was total
denial and false implication. The learned trial court vide order dated
29.04.2004, acquitted the accused from all charges holding that, the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the factum of homicidal death
and it is a case of suicide. The State being aggrieved with the findings
of the trial court, is before us by preferring the present appeal.


6.      Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the appellant – State, assailing the judgment and order of
acquittal, has submitted that the findings of acquittal are contrary to
law and evidence on record and the findings recorded are palpably
erroneous and based on the irrelevant material. There was no dispute
about partition of the land and the manner in which the dead body was
found from the well situated in the farm itself, would clearly prove that
the accused husband wife and none else has killed the deceased by
throwing him into the well.


7.      In such circumstances, as referred above, it has been submitted



                                  Page 3 of 7
     R/CR.A/2039/2005                            JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




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
referred above.


8.      Mr. Param Buch, learned counsel for Mr. Hriday Buch, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-accused has submitted that the
High Court in a case of Appeal against the acquittal, can interfere only
when there are compelling substantial reasons for doing so and more
particularly, the findings are without reasons and unreasonable and
contrary to the evidence. In the facts of the present case, the principle
accused Mohanbhai who had raised the dispute of partition of the land,
is no more and appeal qua him stands abated. There is no iota of
evidence led by the prosecution to show that, the wife-respondent-
accused in any manner with a common intention, had actively
participated in execution of murder with her husband and therefore,
this is a case of no evidence. It is obligation on the part of prosecution
to prove that the death was homicidal and in this case, it has not been
proved and therefore, the findings of the trial court on this aspect does
not require to be interfered and trial court does not have committed any



                                 Page 4 of 7
      R/CR.A/2039/2005                           JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




error either on facts or on law while concluding on the issue of
homicidal death.


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


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


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


12.      We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary



                                  Page 5 of 7
   R/CR.A/2039/2005                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial
Court. The son of the deceased who had lodged the FIR (PW.1) was
declared hostile and in the cross-examination, he did not have
supported to the case of prosecution. The other witnesses namely
PW.3- Shantilal Kanjibhai, PW.4 – Jeram Lakhani, PW.5 – Village
Sarpanch – Prabhaben Patel, though examined, but, they were not
witness of the incident. No one has seen that near the well, there was
scuffle between the son and father and due to said scuffle, the deceased
was thrown into well. In such circumstances, in order to prove the
charge of murder, it is duty of the prosecution to prove that, the death
was homicidal in nature. So as to infer the complicity of the accused,
we cannot take a cognizance of the land dispute between the deceased
and the accused Mohanbhai. However, fact remains that, the accused
Mohanbhai who was son of the deceased, passed away during the
appeal proceedings and so far as accused Vijyaben is concerned, there
is no evidence to involve her in the alleged crime. Thus, therefore, the
view of the Trial Court as to the findings on the aspect of homicidal
death is possible and plausible view and the Trial Court while
analyzing the evidence has assigned cogent and sound reasons and
therefore, findings of acquittal are reasonable and based on the
evidence on record and we do not find any perversity in the findings
of acquittal so as to interfere. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Trial
Court was justified in acquitting the accused and we are in complete
agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the Court below and hence finds no reason to
interfere with the same.



                                 Page 6 of 7
       R/CR.A/2039/2005                                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026




 13.      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.

                                                                                            Sd/-
                                                                                  (ILESH J. VORA,J)




                                                                                        Sd/-
                                                                               (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
 TAUSIF SAIYED


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: TAUSIFAHMED SAIYED(HC01401), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/02/2026 16:50:30




                                                 Page 7 of 7