Holding

The Gujarat High Court affirmed the convictions under Sections 395, 396 IPC (and related provisions) and dismissed all appeals, while also upholding the acquittals of the other accused.

Summary

The case concerns an armed dacoity on a State Transport bus on 20 August 2010, during which four assailants fired at the driver and a passenger, looted valuables and escaped in an Indica car, also firing at a police checkpost. The accused were charged under IPC Sections 395, 396 and 120B, and various provisions of the Arms Act. The Sessions Court convicted four of the accused and acquitted seven others; the State also appealed the acquittals. On appeal, the Gujarat High Court examined the validity of identification parades, the relevance of ballistic evidence, delays in forensic reports, and the sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and Arms Act provisions. It held that the identification evidence and the overall chain of circumstances were reliable, that ballistic linkage was not essential for the IPC convictions, and that the conspiracy charge was not proved against the acquitted. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions and dismissed the appeals against them, and also dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittals.

Issues considered

The identification parades were conducted in compliance with law and were sufficient to support conviction.
Whether ballistic evidence must conclusively link the seized weapon to the fatal injuries for conviction under Sections 395 and 396 IPC.
The effect of delay in forensic (FSL) reports on the admissibility of scientific evidence.
Whether the prosecution proved a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
The applicability of the Arms Act provisions (Sections 25(1‑A), 25(1‑B)(a), 27(3)) to the accused.
The propriety of interfering with the acquittals of the other accused.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25(1-A), s. 25(1)(a), s. 25(1-B)(a), s. 27(3)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 161, s. 162, s. 223, s. 299
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 395, s. 396

Subjects

dacoityarmed robberymurderidentification paradeballistic evidenceconspiracyArms Actconviction appealacquittal appealGujarat High Court

Judgment

R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 2291 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 6 of 2020
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 240 of 2020
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 241 of 2020
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.
1 of 2025
In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 241 of 2020
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 326 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
RUSTOMSING @ BABLU RAVINDRASINH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of 2019:
MR JAGDHISH SATAPARA(5524) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2020:
MR. SOEB R. BHOHARIA(2205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN(6383) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

Criminal Appeal Nos. 240 & 241 of 2020:
MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MRS. BHAVINI N. BUCH(5403) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR RONAK B. RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Page 1 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

Date : 23/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. The present appeals arise out of a common judgment and order
dated 22.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morbi, in
Sessions Case Nos. 01 of 2011, 22 of 2012, 13 of 2012, and 30 of 2014,
whereby the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2291 of 2019, 6 of 2020,
240 of 2020, and 241 of 2020 were convicted for the offences charged
against them, while the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2020
were acquitted. Therefore, the present appeals are being decided by this
common judgment.

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

2.1 The prosecution case, in brief, stems from an incident that occurred
on 20.08.2010 around 7:00 p.m. on the road leading towards Morbi. Four
armed individuals boarded a State Transport bus bearing registration
number GJ-18-Y-1214, which was traveling on the Bhuj-Talaja route.
One of the accused approached the driver and demanded to stop the bus.
When the driver refused, the accused fired a shot at him using a revolver
or pistol, injuring him. During this chaos, the accused fired another shot
at a passenger, causing injury. The assailants then threatened the
passengers, shouting on them to stay still, and proceeded to loot bags
containing valuables from the rear luggage compartment as well as
personal belongings and mobile phones from the passengers. Overcome
by fear, none of the passengers resisted. As a part of conspiracy, the four
assailants then escaped in an Indica car that was following the bus, with
assistance from other accomplices in carrying out the crime. Later, while
fleeing, they encountered a border checkpost manned by police personnel

Page 2 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

and opened fire at them to evade capture.

2.2 Based on these events, the complainant lodged a First Information
Report (FIR) at Morbi Taluka Police Station, registered as C.R. No. I-102
of 2010, under Sections 395, 396, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC), along with Sections 25(1)(a), 25(1-A), 25(1-B)(a), and 27(3)
of the Arms Act, 1959. The investigating officer conducted a thorough
probe, including preparing panchnamas at the crime scene, recording
statements of witnesses, effecting arrests of the accused with
accompanying arrest panchnamas, seizing relevant articles, sending them
for forensic examination, conducting identification parades, and gathering
other necessary evidence. Upon finding sufficient material, a charge sheet
was filed against the accused before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Morbi, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

2.3 After completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge passed the
impugned judgment on 22.03.2019, convicting Rustomsing @ Bablu
Ravindrasinh (Accused No. 1, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of
2019) in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2011; Abidkhan s/o Ijamatkhan Pathan
(Accused No. 11, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2020) in
Sessions Case No. 22 of 2012; Alkesh @ Akhilesh @ Dalbirsinh s/o
Udalsinh @ Ravindrasinh Bhaduria (Accused No. 12, appellant in
Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2020) in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2012; and
Rupendra @ Rupesh @ Bipin s/o Ramsang Asaram Mishra (Accused No.
13, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2020) in Sessions Case No.
30 of 2014, for the aforesaid offences. However, Mohansinh Rupsing
Zala (Accused No. 2), Ghanshyam @ Bholo Gunvant (Accused No. 3),
Kaluji @ Kanji Shankarji Rajani (Accused No. 4), Radheshyam Babulal
(Accused No. 6), Nareshvan Prahladvan Goswami (Accused No. 7),
Gandalal Nagardas (Accused No. 8), and Ramlakhan Ramshankar Modi

Page 3 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

(Accused No. 9) were acquitted in the lead case.

2.4 Aggrieved by the convictions, the aforesaid convict assailed the
order by preferring Criminal Appeal Nos. 2291 of 2019, 6 of 2020, 240 of
2020, and 241 of 2020 before this Court. Additionally, the State filed
Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2020 challenging the acquittal of the
aforementioned seven accused. All these appeals have been clubbed
together for hearing and disposal, as they emanate from a common
judgment.

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 trials, the
prosecution examined witnesses and produced documents as detailed
below:

~:: Oral Evidence ::~
P.W.
Particular (Witness) Exh.
No.
1 Dr. Sadiq Husain Gulam Mahmud Momin 39
2 Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Dhamecha 164
3 Bharatbhai Babubhai Chavda 166
4 Lakhmanbhai Narshibhai Thoriya 167
5 Maheshbhai Balubhai Thoriya 169
6 Hushenbhai Hasambhai Chaniya 170
7 Vaneshbhai Shivabhai Patel 172
8 Dineshbhai Vajubhai Gadhavi 174
9 Dhirajgiri Bhagwangiri 175
10 Rameshbhai Nyalchand 177
11 Maheshbhai Lakhmanbhai 179
12 Dineshbhai Shamjibhai Dabhi 182

Page 4 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

P.W.
Particular (Witness) Exh.
No.
13 Rajeshbhai Shantlal 185
14 Sanjaybhai Ramanikbhai 186
15 Bhaveshbhai Jashvantbhai Pandya 187
16 Dineshbhai Jayantilal Bhat 188
17 Vinodbhai Gangaram Patel 189
18 Jitubhai Prahladbhai Patel 190
19 Arjunbhai Chelabhai Sindhwani 192(A)
20 Lakkirajsinh Jayvirsinh Chudasama 193(A)
21 Lalubha Hathubha Zhala 194(A)
22 Yogeshbhai Keshavji Thakkar 196
23 Anilbhai Pratapbhai Thakkar 197
24 Pradeepbhai Hanumanmal Bhansali 198
25 Hotchand Mahadevmal 199
26 Mukeshbhai Harjivanbhai 200
27 Hitenbhai Chhaganbhai 201
28 Dilipbhai Naranjibhai 202
29 Pareshbhai Tribhuvanbhai 203
30 Nileshbhai Nartvarlal 204
31 Jiteshbhai alias Jagubhai Bhanukantbhai 205
32 Shantilal Hansrajbhai 206
33 Jigneshbhai Shivalalbia 207
34 Chiragbhai Vallabhbhai Kalariya 209
35 Prafulbhai Dineshbhai Soni 210
36 Sunilbhai Lalchand Shah 211
37 Dharmeshbhai Jagdishbhai Khandla 212
38 Keshubhai Lakhabhai Patel 213
39 Shanitlal Pravinbhai Parmar 214
40 Velubha Vishubha Gohil 215
41 Kirankumar Madhavlal Chaudhary 216
42 Yuvarajsinh Anadubha Chudasama 217
43 Manjulaben Ishargiri Goswami 219
44 Jagdishbhai Ramshibhai Solanki 220

Page 5 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

P.W.
Particular (Witness) Exh.
No.
45 Yunuskhan alias Bholo Sorabkhan Pathan 221
46 Jayendrasinh Mohansinh Rajput 222
47 Complainant Ashokkumar Gopaldas Nai 223
48 Karanabhai Machhabhai Panchiya 229
49 Dilipbhai Vashrambhai Kansagar 231
50 Prakashbhai Kantilal Palaan 232
51 Jagdishbhai Hargovindbhai 234
52 Vimalbhai Gunvantray Jani 243
53 Upendrabhai Anandjibhai Patel 244
54 Govindjibhai Keshavjibhai Kailani 245
55 Hushenbhai Jumabhai Piludiya 246
56 Bhupendrabhai Savjibhai Jetpariya 247
57 Ghanshyamsinh Surubha Gohil 249
58 Abhesinh Dhirubha Parmar 250
59 Ashoksinh Jayantilal Soni 253
60 Sanjaybhai Jatashankar Soni 254
61 Kumarbhai Kantilal Solanki 255
62 Mahipal Anandjibhai Tanna 256
63 Prabhudashbhai Khetshibhai Soni 257
64 Mukeshbhai Dhanjibhai Soni 258
65 Nileshbhai Pravinbhai Soni 259
66 Deepakbhai Kantilal Patel 260
67 Hareshbhai Popatlal Sejpara 262
68 Kamleshbhai Dharalal Vaithani 263
69 Sanjaybhai Labhshankarbhai Rawal 264
70 Nileshbhai Vardhimal Doshi 265
71 Kishorsinh Pathubha Jadeja 266
72 Harpalsinh Jitubha Jadeja 267
73 Jentibhai Jalariya 269
74 Ajaysinh Baldevsinh Gohil 271
75 Surendrasinh Amirsinh Solanki 272
76 Sangeetaben Manchhaji Modi 275

Page 6 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

P.W.
Particular (Witness) Exh.
No.
77 Jagdishbhai Khimjibhai Samadiya 276
78 Bhanuprasad Prakashbhai Baman 277
79 Karshanbhai Jivabhai Patel 280
80 Fakirbhai Mahmadbhai 281
81 Rameshbhai Haribhai 285
82 Bhikhabhai Rambhai 286
83 Laxmanbhai Panabhai Shrimali 294
84 Tansukhbhai Nathalal Ashara 296
85 Hasmukhlal Thakorlal Modi 305
86 Police Witness Hareshkumar Jasvantray Bhat 316
87 Panjivanbhai Virjibhai 420
88 Sureshbhai Mansukhbhai Parmar 435
89 Jumasha Nursha Shahmadar 437
90 Avachalbhai Ratabhai Bhojani 439
91 Merambhai Prabhatbhai Rathod 444
92 Ranvijaysinh Jinakubha Godhal 455
93 Hareshbhai Bhagwanbhai Satani 457
94 Naranbhai Kalabhai Muchhar 461
95 Thakarshibhai Gordhanbhai Bavarva 471
96 Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Pandya 485
97 Hemchandbhai Shivajibhai 486
98 Amarshibhai Magnabhai Parmar 487
99 Gaurangbhai Jyotindrabhai Oza 493
100 Police Witness Nanjibhai Surajbhai Ninama 497
101 Police Witness Jorajibhai Savjibhai Bhati 505
102 Police Witness Amrutlal Jivanbhai Dalsaniya 518
103 Police Witness Jayendrasinh Jilubha Parmar 537
104 Police Witness Jitendrasinh Madhavsinh Yadav 543
105 Police Witness Mahipalsinh Vijaysinh Zhala 546

~:: Documentary Evidence ::~

Page 7 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

Sr. No. Particular (Document) Exh.
1 Yadi to P.M. 40
2 P.M. Report 42
3 Arrest Panchnama 165
4 Arrest Panchnama 168
5 Arrest Panchnama 171
6 Discovery Panchnama 173
7 Panchnama 176
8 Arrest Panchnama 178
9 Arrest Panchnama 183
10 Scene of Offence Panchnama 192
11 Panchnama 193
12 Panchnama 194
13 Complaint (FIR) 224
14 Panchnama 230
15 Panchnama 233
16 Discovery Panchnama 248
17 Discovery Panchnama 251
18 RC Book Copy of muddamal Innova 273
19 Insurance Copy of Muddamal Vehicle 274
20 Inspection Report of Bus Involved in Incident 297
Inspection Report of Indica Car Involved in
21 298
Incident
22 Order regarding Station Diary Entry 299
23 P.S.I., Sanathavad letter 300
24 Permission Letter for seizure by Accused 301
25 Copy of FIR Viramgam P.S. Crime No. 102/10 317
26 Map of Scene of Offence 323
27 Copy of Exh-38 of Addl. Sessions Case No. 350 350
28 Inquest Panchnama 398
29 Letter regarding Muddamal Inspection 399
30 Letter from FSL Office 400
31 Letter regarding Muddamal Inspection 401

Page 8 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

Sr. No. Particular (Document) Exh.
32 Letter from FSL Office 402
33 Letter regarding Muddamal Inspection 403
34 Letter from FSL Office 404
35 Letter regarding Muddamal Inspection 405
36 Letter regarding Muddamal Inspection 406
37 Forwarding Letter for Muddamal Examination 407
38 Muddamal Examination Report 408 to 409
39 Forwarding Letter for Muddamal Examination 410
40 Muddamal Examination Report 411
41 Forwarding Letter for Muddamal Examination 412
42 Muddamal Examination Report 413
43 Demonstration Panchnama 421
44 Demonstration Panchnama 422
45 Demonstration Panchnama 436
46 List regarding Identification Parade 440
47 Panchnama regarding Identification Parade 441
48 List regarding Identification Parade 458
49 Letter regarding Identification Parade 459
50 Original Panchnama 460
51 List regarding Identification Parade 462
52 Letter regarding Identification Parade 463
53 Letter regarding Identification Parade 464
54 Panchnama of Seizure by Accused 465
55 Letter regarding Identification Parade 466
56 Letter regarding Identification Parade 467
57 Panchnama of Seizure by Accused 468
58 Demonstration Panchnama 488
59 Papers regarding Charge-sheet Sanction 494
60 Panchnama 498
61 Complaint given by PSI through informant 499
62 Forwarding Letter of Map of Scene of Offence 501
63 Station Diary Entry No.31/10 Copy 506
64 Depute Order 507

Page 9 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

Sr. No. Particular (Document) Exh.
65 Station Diary Entry No.32/10 Copy 508
66 Letter for registering offence as per complaint 509
67 Depute Order 510
68 Fax Message regarding serious offence 511
69 Panchnama of Seizure of Muddamal Car 519
70 P.M. Report 520
71 P.M. Report 521
Soma Ramdas Angadiya Firm receipts (Total 10
72 523
pages, Exh-523)
Magnabhai Angadiya Firm receipts (Total 12
73 524
pages, Exh-524)
Document of house purchased by accused
74 525
Govindsinh
75 Letter to RTO Officer Gwalior 526
Letter from RTO Office Gwalior along with
76 527 & 528
insurance
77 Letter regarding Mobile Call Details 529 & 530
78 Post-mortem Form 520 & 521
Copy of Panchnama and FIR of Crime
79 544 & 545
No.3072/11
80 Letter from Morbi P.S. ASI 552
81 Copy of FIR Sanand P.S. Crime No.217/10 553

4. Learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of
2019, vehemently assailed the impugned judgment on several grounds.
He submitted that the learned Sessions Court erred in relying on the
identification parade, as the appellant was allegedly shown to the
witnesses at the police station prior to the formal parade, rendering it
unreliable and violative of fair procedure. He pointed out that the bus
passengers, including the conductor, failed to provide any prior
description of the assailants in their statements under Section 161 CrPC,
and the parade was conducted after a significant delay of over a year,

Page 10 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

which casts doubt on the witnesses' memory. Further, he argued that the
ballistic evidence was inconclusive; the bullets recovered from the
deceased did not match the cartridge cases found at the scene or the
weapon allegedly seized from the appellant, as per the FSL report. The
postmortem report, while confirming death by gunshot, did not specify
the type of weapon, and the delay of two months in sending articles to
FSL raised suspicions of tampering. No looted valuables, including the
claimed gold ornaments worth Rs. 45 lakhs, were recovered from the
appellant, despite the prosecution's case of dacoity. He contended that the
appellant's plea under Section 313 CrPC was not properly considered, and
the chain of circumstances was incomplete, failing to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. Relying on precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in various cases and Gujarat High Court judgments emphasizing the need
for unassailable identification, he urged for acquittal, submitting that the
conviction under Sections 395, 396, and 120(B) IPC read with Arms Act
provisions was perverse and liable to be set aside.

5. Learned advocates for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of
2020, jointly submitted that the learned Sessions Court's conviction was
based on shaky foundations, particularly the eyewitness testimony which
lacked corroboration. They argued that the appellant was not identified by
any passenger during the initial investigation, and the identification
parade was flawed as the appellant's face was partially covered during the
incident, yet no such simulation was done in the parade. The witnesses,
they contended, turned hostile in part and could not recall specific roles
of the appellant in the alleged dacoity. On the medical evidence, they
highlighted discrepancies in the postmortem report, noting that the bullets
extracted were of different calibers, suggesting multiple weapons, but
only one pistol was recovered without linking it ballistically to the crime.
The delay in arrest 14 months after the incident further weakened the

Page 11 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

case, as no independent evidence connected the appellant to the Indica car
or the escape route. They assailed the consolidation of cases, submitting it
prejudiced the appellant by clubbing unrelated evidence. Invoking
Section 299 CrPC proceedings against absconding co-accused as
irrelevant to this appellant, they argued that the prosecution failed to
prove conspiracy under Section 120(B) IPC, as there was no overt act
attributed solely to him. Thus, they prayed for reversal of the conviction
and acquittal, by emphasizing that the sentence imposed was
disproportionate without direct proof of firing.

6. Learned advocates for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 240
of 2020 and 241 of 2020, advanced common submissions for both
appeals, given the interconnected facts. They contended that the learned
Sessions Court overlooked material contradictions in the prosecution
evidence, such as the failure to recover any looted items or the Indica
car's number plate, which was crucial to the escape narrative. For
Accused No. 12, they argued that his identification was suspect, as
witnesses described a "tall man with a mustache," but no such details
were recorded promptly, and the parade lacked dummies of similar build.
The ballistic mismatch was emphasized: cartridge cases from the scene
were for a revolver, while the seized weapon was a pistol, per FSL
findings, rendering the recovery inadmissible under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. For Accused No. 13, they submitted that his role was
peripheral at best, with no witness attributing firing or looting to him
directly; the conspiracy charge failed for want of meeting of minds. They
pointed to the telephonic information by the bus conductor as the true
first information, hitting the FIR under Section 162 CrPC. The delay in
forensic submission and absence of CDR evidence linking the appellants
to the scene were highlighted as fatal lapses. Thus it is urged to set aside
the convictions under the IPC and Arms Act, submitting that the

Page 12 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

appellants deserved acquittal to prevent miscarriage of justice.

7. Learned APP for the respondent-State in all appeals, stoutly
defended the impugned judgment, submitting that the learned Sessions
Court rightly convicted the appellants based on overwhelming evidence.
He argued that the incident of armed dacoity on the bus was vividly
corroborated by 105 witnesses, including injured passengers and the
conductor, whose consistent narratives established the sequence:
boarding, firing at the driver and passenger, looting, and escape. The
identification parades, conducted before a Magistrate, were fair and
reliable, with key witnesses like the complainant and conductor positively
identifying the appellants without prior exposure.

7.1. On ballistic evidence, he contended that minor discrepancies did
not undermine the chain, as the FSL report confirmed gunfire residues,
and recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act linked weapons to the
crime. The postmortem reports unequivocally proved homicidal deaths
due to gunshots, supporting charges under Section 396 IPC. He urged that
the consolidation of cases was proper under Section 223 CrPC, given the
common transaction, and the absconding accused's proceedings under
Section 299 CrPC did not prejudice others, while dismissing the defense
pleas of delay or tampering as unsubstantiated, he submitted that the
loot's non-recovery was not fatal in dacoity cases.

7.2. For the acquittal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2020), he
briefly submitted that the learned Sessions Court erred in acquitting the
respondents therein, but as the matter is connected, it be considered on
merits. Overall, he prayed for dismissal of the conviction appeals and
allowance of the acquittal appeal, emphasizing deterrence for such
heinous crimes affecting public transport safety.

Page 13 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

8. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that convicting an
innocent person has serious consequences, not only for the individual but
also for society. Therefore, a Court can record a conviction only when the
prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the justice
system must reduce the risk of wrongful conviction as far as possible.
When the evidence is examined on this standard, it is clear that the
prosecution examined 105 witnesses and produced documentary
evidence. It is firmly proved that in the incident involving the bus on the
Bhuj Talaja route within the jurisdiction of Morbi Taluka Police Station,
two persons died and their deaths were unnatural. This is supported by
the medical evidence of Dr. Sadiq Husain Gulam Mahmud Momin (PW-
1, Exh.39), who conducted the post-mortems. In his evidence, Dr. Sadiq
Husain Gulam Mahmud Momin (PW-1, Exh.39) explained the injuries in
detail. He stated that the driver, Baldev Jashubha, had a gunshot injury on
the chest with both entry and exit wounds showing a close-range shot,
which caused hemorrhagic shock, and that a deformed bullet marked J-4
was recovered from the chest cavity. Regarding the passenger Amrutji
Galabhai, he stated that there was a gunshot injury to the abdomen
causing damage to vital organs such as the intestines and liver, that bullet
H-4 was recovered from the pelvic region, and that death occurred due to
peritonitis and shock caused by the gunshot injury. In cross-examination,
he clarified that the bullets were of different calibres, J-4 appearing to be
7.65 mm and H-4 appearing to be 8 mm, but he could not identify the
exact firearm without ballistic examination. He denied any tampering
with the bodies or reports and confirmed that the post-mortems were
conducted immediately after the inquest. This medical evidence is
reliable, is supported by the post-mortem reports (Exhs.42, 520, 521), and
matches the eyewitness version of firing inside the bus. The defence
could not bring out any material contradiction. This evidence clearly

Page 14 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

proves that the deaths were homicidal and caused by firearms, supporting
the charge under Section 396 IPC.

9. Among the oral evidence, the testimony of Ranvijaysinh Jinakubha
Godhal (PW-92, Exh.455), the bus conductor, is important because he
was on duty and claims to have seen the incident. In his examination-in-
chief, he stated that at about 7:00 p.m. on 20.08.2010, four persons came
near the driver and him, showed firearms, forced the passengers,
including him, to move towards the back of the bus, and when the bus
was not stopped immediately, one assailant fired at the driver. He further
stated that the assailants took bags, including those of two Angadiya
persons, and escaped in an Indica car, the number of which he read from
behind. He also stated that he identified accused persons such as
Abidkhan, Alkesh, and Rupesh in different identification parades.
However, in cross-examination, certain facts reduce the strength of his
identification evidence is not too fatal to discard entire exercise of T.I.
parade. He admitted that the person who fired had his face covered with a
cloth, that he saw the Indica car from inside the bus and from a distance,
and that he came to know about the arrest of the accused only after
several months, while the record shows that the arrests took place much
later. In these circumstances, his evidence supports the occurrence and
the manner of the offence.

10. Regarding the conduct of the identification parades, the
prosecution examined Hareshbhai Bhagwanbhai Satani (PW-93,
Exh.457), who was then Deputy Mamlatdar, and Naranbhai Kalabhai
Muchhar (PW-94, Exh.461), who was Mamlatdar and Executive
Magistrate in 2011. Hareshbhai Bhagwanbhai Satani (PW-93, Exh.457)
explained the procedure followed, including keeping witnesses separate,
arranging several persons with similar features in a line, ensuring fairness

Page 15 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

through panchas, allowing the accused to change appearance such as
hairstyle or clothes, placing the accused properly in the line, and
recording the identification with signatures of panchas and the witness. In
cross-examination, he confirmed that no hints were given and that proper
safeguards were followed. Naranbhai Kalabhai Muchhar (PW-94,
Exh.461) stated that the parade was held in a well-lit room, witnesses
were kept separately, the accused were brought with faces covered, staff
were instructed to prevent any improper exposure, and the accused
disclosed their names, including “Alkesh Rajput Thakor” and “Abidkhan
@ Aful”. He stated that the witness Ranvijaysinh was called, the purpose
of the parade was explained, and the witness identified the accused by
touching and taking them out of the line. He further stated that the
accused were given an opportunity to change position or clothes and that
the witness declined a repeat parade. In cross-examination, he confirmed
that there was no communication between the witnesses and the accused
before the parade. Taken together, their evidence shows that the
identification parades were conducted with proper safeguards.

11. The panch witness Thakarshibhai Gordhanbhai Bavarva (PW-95,
Exh.471) supported the fact that an identification parade was held at the
Mamlatdar office. He stated that several persons were made to stand in a
line, that witnesses identified the concerned person, and he identified his
signature on the panchnama and stated the approximate time of the
parade. Although he could not recall every minor detail, such as the exact
name of the person identified, his evidence supports the holding of the
parade and the contemporaneous record. In cross-examination, he stated
that the procedure was fair and that no coercion was used.

12. On an overall assessment of the identification evidence, the
defence pointed out alleged procedural lapses, lack of detailed

Page 16 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

descriptions in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and changes in
appearance over time. However, the evidence of the Executive
Magistrates Hareshbhai Bhagwanbhai Satani (PW-93, Exh.457) and
Naranbhai Kalabhai Muchhar (PW-94, Exh.461) consistently shows that
the conductor Ranvijaysinh Jinakubha Godhal (PW-92, Exh.455)
identified accused Abidkhan, Alkesh, and Rupesh in their respective
parades. The panchnamas show dates that broadly match the prosecution
version of separate parades held at different times. The difference pointed
out by the defence, that the witness referred in cross-examination to being
called after “a few months” or “about a year” while documents show
specific dates, does not by itself destroy the prosecution case, as it is
common for witnesses to be inaccurate about time while remaining
correct about the main event.

13. The complainant Ashokkumar Gopaldas Nai (PW-47, Exh.223)
stated that he was travelling with Angadiya parcels and that at about 7:30
p.m. near Nagdavas, four persons came from the rear seats of the bus,
moved forward shouting orders, some carrying firearms. He stated that
firing took place, his companion Amrutji Galabhai was injured, the
assailants forced the driver to stop when he refused to succumb, the
accused fired at him as well, took passengers’ bags including Angadiya
bags, and fled in an Indica car. He also stated that he was called for
identification parades on three occasions and identified the accused, and
in Court he claimed to identify two accused and Rupesh. However, in
cross-examination, he admitted that it was dark, that he could not clearly
state who exactly entered for looting, and that at the police station he was
shown the accused as arrested persons before he identified them. This
admission weakens the value of his identification evidence. The learned
Sessions Court was therefore right in relying on his evidence mainly to
prove the occurrence and the manner of the offence, while treating his

Page 17 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

identification of specific accused with caution. Although he was declared
hostile on certain aspects, his evidence cannot be completely rejected.

14. Regarding the post-incident nakabandi and chase, the prosecution
examined Hareshkumar Jasvantray Bhat (PW-86, Exh.316), Lakkirajsinh
Jayvirsinh Chudasama (PW-20, Exh.193(A)), and Bhanuprasad
Prakashbhai Baman (PW-78, Exh.277). Hareshkumar Jasvantray Bhat
(PW-86, Exh.316) stated that after receiving information, a blockade was
set up, an Indica car was noticed, and firing allegedly took place near
Dolatpara road. He claimed to have seen the shooter in the light of his
vehicle and to have identified accused including Rustamsinh and Abid.
However, in cross-examination, he admitted that important details, such
as seeing all four persons alight from the Indica and seeing them in the
headlights of the Logan car, were not recorded in his earlier statement.
This omission in its entirity cannot affect the reliability of his
identification. Lakkirajsinh Jayvirsinh Chudasama (PW-20, Exh.193(A))
stated that he did not see the four persons and did not note the number of
the Indica. Even after being declared hostile, his evidence remained
uncertain. In cross-examination, he admitted that it was dark and that he
could not see the four persons who allegedly fired. In such circumstances,
any later identification has little value. Bhanuprasad Prakashbhai Baman
(PW-78, Exh.277) stated only that he was driving, that vehicle checking
was going on, that they chased an Indica, and that when firing sounds
were heard he bent down. He gave no clear details of the assailants and
remained largely unhelpful even after being declared hostile. The learned
Sessions Court rightly found that these witnesses do not help in fixing
identity or participation, though they support the fact of pursuit. Even if
some nakabandi or chase witnesses are weak on identification, the case
does not fail, as the law depends on the quality, not the number, of
witnesses. The main incident of armed assailants stopping the bus, firing,

Page 18 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

looting bags, and fleeing in an Indica is supported by Ranvijaysinh
Jinakubha Godhal (PW-92, Exh.455) and other reliable evidence.

15. The prosecution also examined several passenger witnesses whose
evidence is consistent on the main facts of the incident. Bhaveshbhai
Jashvantbhai Pandya (PW-15, Exh.187) stated that he heard gunfire while
seated near the complainant and was ordered to move to the back of the
bus. Dineshbhai Jayantilal Bhat (PW-16, Exh.188) stated that he woke up
on hearing a loud sound, was threatened not to move or use his mobile
phone, and saw that the driver and an Angadiya person were shot, after
which the assailants escaped in a vehicle. In cross-examination,
Bhaveshbhai Jashvantbhai Pandya (PW-15, Exh.187) stated that the bus
lights were on, and Dineshbhai Jayantilal Bhat (PW-16, Exh.188) stated
that the bus was internally lit and that he identified accused Alkesh by
build and voice in the identification parade. Other passengers, namely
Lalubha Hathubha Zhala (PW-21, Exh.194(A)), Chiragbhai Vallabhbhai
Kalariya (PW-34, Exh.209), Dharmeshbhai Jagdishbhai Khandla (PW-37,
Exh.212), Keshubhai Lakhabhai Patel (PW-38, Exh.213), Shantilal
Pravinbhai Parmar (PW-39, Exh.214), Velubha Vishubha Gohil (PW-40,
Exh.215), Yuvarajsinh Anadubha Chudasama (PW-42, Exh.217),
Manjulaben Ishargiri Goswami (PW-43, Exh.219), Jagdishbhai
Ramshibhai Solanki (PW-44, Exh.220), Jayendrasinh Mohansinh Rajput
(PW-46, Exh.222), and Vimalbhai Gunvantray Jani (PW-52, Exh.243)
gave similar accounts. They stated that four unknown men came from the
rear of the bus around 7:15 7:30 p.m., threatened the driver, fired when
there was delay, forced passengers to sit back, looted bags including
Angadiya parcels, and fled in an Indica. Some noted that one assailant
had a partially covered face and spoke in mixed Gujarati-Hindi. In cross-
examination, they admitted minor variations due to darkness and fear but
remained firm on the main facts, including the use of firearms and the

Page 19 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

sequence of events. This consistent evidence clearly proves the
occurrence of dacoity in the bus, the use of firearms, the looting of bags,
the escape in an Indica, and the deaths of the driver and the Angadiya
employee. At the same time, the learned Sessions Court correctly held
that while these witnesses are reliable about the incident, they generally
do not provide a firm basis to identify each accused beyond the
identification evidence already discussed. Their evidence supports the
occurrence and violent conduct.

16. The witnesses Kishorsinh Pathubha Jadeja (PW-71, Exh.266) and
Harpalsinh Jitubha Jadeja (PW-72, Exh.267) stated that they were
travelling for personal reasons and that the incident occurred near the
concerned village at about 7:15 p.m. They both stated that four unknown
persons approached the driver, fired when the bus was not stopped
immediately, ordered the passengers to move to the back, fired at the
Angadiya employee, and then fled in an Indica car. In cross-examination,
both admitted that it had become dark by around 7:00 p.m. Their
evidence supports the fact of the incident and its broad circumstances.

17. The prosecution examined several witnesses from Angadiya firms
to show that valuables were being carried in the bus and to explain how
the loss was reported after the incident. Although this is not direct
evidence of the offence, it provides important circumstantial support
regarding motive and loss. Vinodbhai Gangaram Patel (PW-17, Exh.189)
stated that Ashokkumar Nai had not brought any parcel from Rajkot
earlier that day, but after lunch, when Ashokkumar left Bhuj for Rajkot
by the Bhuj Talaja bus, four parcels of a total value of about Rs.1.52 lakh
were entrusted to him. He further stated that at about 8:00 p.m., they
received a phone call from the Rajkot office informing them that between
Morbi and Maliya firing had taken place in the bus, the driver and an

Page 20 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

Angadiya employee were shot, the bags were looted, and the assailants
fled in an Indica car. In cross-examination, he clarified that no insurance
claim was immediately filed, but internal records confirmed the loss.
Jitubhai Prahladbhai Patel (PW-18, Exh.190) similarly stated that
Ashokkumar was carrying several parcels, including insured and valued
consignments and cash, and that they received information around 8:00
p.m. about the dacoity, firing, and the deaths of the driver and Angadiya
employee Amrutji Galabhai. In cross-examination, he confirmed the
valuations based on ledger entries. Arjunbhai Chelabhai Sindhwani (PW-
19, Exh.192(A)) gave details of consignments entrusted to Amrutji
Galabhai, including valuations and cash, and maintained their accuracy in
cross-examination. This evidence shows that Angadiya parcels were
being carried and that loss was promptly reported. The learned Sessions
Court rightly relied on it only for this limited corroborative purpose.

17.1. In the same manner, Yogeshbhai Keshavji Thakkar (PW-22,
Exh.196), Anilbhai Pratapbhai Thakkar (PW-23, Exh.197), Pradeepbhai
Hanumanmal Bhansali (PW-24, Exh.198), Hotchand Mahadevmal (PW-
25, Exh.199), Mukeshbhai Harjivanbhai (PW-26, Exh.200), Hitenbhai
Chhaganbhai (PW-27, Exh.201), Dilipbhai Naranjibhai (PW-28,
Exh.202), Pareshbhai Tribhuvanbhai (PW-29, Exh.203), Nileshbhai
Nartvarlal (PW-30, Exh.204), Jiteshbhai alias Jagubhai Bhanukantbhai
(PW-31, Exh.205), Shantilal Hansrajbhai (PW-32, Exh.206), Jigneshbhai
Shivalalbia (PW-33, Exh.207), Prafulbhai Dineshbhai Soni (PW-35,
Exh.210), Sunilbhai Lalchand Shah (PW-36, Exh.211), Ashoksinh
Jayantilal Soni (PW-59, Exh.253), Sanjaybhai Jatashankar Soni (PW-60,
Exh.254), Kumarbhai Kantilal Solanki (PW-61, Exh.255), Mahipal
Anandjibhai Tanna (PW-62, Exh.256), Prabhudashbhai Khetshibhai Soni
(PW-63, Exh.257), Mukeshbhai Dhanjibhai Soni (PW-64, Exh.258), and
Nileshbhai Pravinbhai Soni (PW-65, Exh.259) stated that they had sent

Page 21 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

parcels through Angadiya firms, explained valuations based on records,
and confirmed non-delivery after the incident. In cross-examination, they
accepted that they had no personal knowledge of the incident itself. Their
evidence establishes the business background and the movement of
parcels, but it does not prove identity or participation. The learned
Sessions Court correctly treated this evidence as background material
only. Kirankumar Madhavlal Chaudhary (PW-41, Exh.216) stated that he
came to collect parcels, learnt that Ashokkumar had carried them in the
bus, and later received information about firing and looting. In cross-
examination, he admitted that his knowledge was hearsay. His evidence
supports the timeline of information flow after the incident.

18. The witnesses Deepakbhai Kantilal Patel (PW-66, Exh.260),
Hareshbhai Popatlal Sejpara (PW-67, Exh.262), Kamleshbhai Dharalal
Vaithani (PW-68, Exh.263), Sanjaybhai Labhshankarbhai Rawal (PW-69,
Exh.264), Nileshbhai Vardhimal Doshi (PW-70, Exh.265), Jentibhai
Jalariya (PW-73, Exh.269), and Ajaysinh Baldevsinh Gohil (PW-74,
Exh.271) mainly stated that they received information about the dacoity
from Angadiya staff, police, Ashokkumar Nai, or the bus conductor. They
described receiving phone calls around 8:00 p.m. and learning about
firing, looting, and injuries. In cross-examination, they admitted they had
no personal knowledge of the incident. Their evidence only shows that
the incident was quickly communicated and treated seriously by the
Angadiya firms. This evidence does not prove identity and is only
corroborative of post-incident communication.

19. Surendrasinh Amirsinh Solanki (PW-75, Exh.272) stated that
around the time of the incident, one “Kaluji” took his Innova car on the
pretext of hiring it for a trip to Mumbai and returned it after two days,
stating that he had travelled through Bhuj, Gandhidham, Morbi, and

Page 22 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

Viramgam. He further stated that after reading a newspaper report of the
Angadiya dacoity mentioning his car number, he realised that his vehicle
had been used, and the police later seized the car. In cross-examination,
he admitted that he had no written proof that Kaluji was his employee.
This evidence only shows that the vehicle became part of the
investigation. By itself, it does not prove the role of the present accused
unless the prosecution independently establishes Kaluji’s identity as an
accused, the use of the vehicle in the offence, and a link with the
appellants. The limited reliance placed by the learned Sessions Court on
this evidence is proper. Similarly, Karshanbhai Jivabhai Patel (PW-79,
Exh.280) stated that on 21.08.2010 a person named Ramlakhan called
him for help to go home and that he sent his driver, claiming to identify
Ramlakhan in Court. However, the driver Fakirbhai Mahmadbhai (PW-
80, Exh.281) stated that he drove a Bolero, carried four persons to
Gwalior, and did not know their names or know Ramlakhan. This
contradiction weakens the prosecution case on this aspect. This evidence
does not safely establish involvement of Kaluji or Ramlakhan and does
not form a clear chain pointing to guilt.

20. Bhikhabhai Rambhai (PW-82, Exh.286) stated that several years
earlier he noticed bag-like articles in bushes near his field and informed
the police, who seized the bags under a panchnama. He identified the
muddamal bags in Court. Laxmanbhai Panabhai Shrimali (PW-83,
Exh.294) supported the seizure and identified the panchnama. In cross-
examination, both stated they did not know who placed the bags there.
This evidence proves recovery of bags from a particular place but does
not show who placed them there. It remains a relevant link regarding
seizure. Many other panch witnesses, namely Dineshbhai Jivanbhai
Dhamecha (PW-2, Exh.164), Bharatbhai Babubhai Chavda (PW-3,
Exh.166), Lakhmanbhai Narshibhai Thoriya (PW-4, Exh.167),

Page 23 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

Maheshbhai Balubhai Thoriya (PW-5, Exh.169), Hushenbhai Hasambhai
Chaniya (PW-6, Exh.170), Vaneshbhai Shivabhai Patel (PW-7, Exh.172),
Dineshbhai Vajubhai Gadhavi (PW-8, Exh.174), Dhirajgiri Bhagwangiri
(PW-9, Exh.175), Rameshbhai Nyalchand (PW-10, Exh.177),
Maheshbhai Lakhmanbhai (PW-11, Exh.179), Dineshbhai Shamjibhai
Dabhi (PW-12, Exh.182), Rajeshbhai Shantlal (PW-13, Exh.185),
Sanjaybhai Ramanikbhai (PW-14, Exh.186), Karshanbhai Machhabhai
Panchiya (PW-48, Exh.229), Dilipbhai Vashrambhai Kansagar (PW-49,
Exh.231), Prakashbhai Kantilal Palaan (PW-50, Exh.232), Jagdishbhai
Hargovindbhai (PW-51, Exh.234), Upendrabhai Anandjibhai Patel (PW-
53, Exh.244), Govindjibhai Keshavjibhai Kailani (PW-54, Exh.245),
Hushenbhai Jumabhai Piludiya (PW-55, Exh.246), Bhupendrabhai
Savjibhai Jetpariya (PW-56, Exh.247), Ghanshyamsinh Surubha Gohil
(PW-57, Exh.249), Panjivanbhai Virjibhai (PW-87, Exh.420), Sureshbhai
Mansukhbhai Parmar (PW-88, Exh.435), Jumasha Nursha Shahmadar
(PW-89, Exh.437), Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Pandya (PW-96, Exh.485),
Hemchandbhai Shivajibhai (PW-97, Exh.486), and Amarshibhai
Magnabhai Parmar (PW-98, Exh.487) were examined for various
panchnamas admitted their signatures but did not support the detailed
procedure and stated that they signed at the request of police without full
knowledge.

20.1. Gaurangbhai Jyotindrabhai Oza (PW-99, Exh.493) proved the
administrative approval for filing the charge-sheet through official
records (Exh.494). His evidence shows that proper procedure was
followed and no illegality is shown.

20.2. The police witnesses Nanjibhai Surajbhai Ninama (PW-100,
Exh.497), Jorajibhai Savjibhai Bhati (PW-101, Exh.505), Amrutlal
Jivanbhai Dalsaniya (PW-102, Exh.518), Jayendrasinh Jilubha Parmar

Page 24 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

(PW-103, Exh.537), Jitendrasinh Madhavsinh Yadav (PW-104, Exh.543),
and Mahipalsinh Vijaysinh Zhala (PW-105, Exh.546) described the
investigation, arrests, recoveries, and procedural steps. Their evidence is
consistent with documentary records such as station diary entries,
complaints, panchnamas, and remand papers. The learned Sessions Court
examined their evidence along with the entire record and found the
investigation to be broadly lawful and consistent. No serious
contradiction or illegality has been shown to justify interference with
those findings.

20.3. In continuation to the deposition of the Police Inspector (PI) and
other investigating officers involved in the probe, their testimonies
provide a comprehensive account of the investigative process.
Specifically, Hareshkumar Jasvantray Bhat (PW-86, Exh.316), a key
police witness, stated in his examination-in-chief that upon receiving
information about the dacoity and firing via wireless around 7:30-8:00
p.m. on 20.08.2010, he mobilized a team to set up a blockade at the
Dolatpara road checkpost. He described noticing the suspicious Indica car
approaching at high speed, the assailants alighting and opening fire to
evade capture, and identifying some accused, including Rustomsing and
Abidkhan, in the vehicle's headlights during the chaos. He further
detailed pursuing the vehicle briefly, noting the exchange of gunfire
without injuries to police, and subsequently informing higher authorities,
which led to the escalation of the investigation. In cross-examination, he
admitted omissions in his Section 161 statement, such as not initially
recording the exact number of assailants or the full vehicle number, but
maintained that these were due to the nighttime conditions and urgency,
without any fabrication. This testimony, while weak on precise
identification as noted earlier, corroborates the post-dacoity escape
narrative and the proactive police response, aligning with documentary

Page 25 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

evidence like station diary entries (Exhs. 299, 506) and the FIR copy
(Exh. 317). The learned Sessions Court rightly evaluated it as supportive
of the pursuit fact rather than definitive proof of identity, ensuring no
undue reliance was placed on potentially uncertain aspects.

20.4. Abhesinh Dhirubha Parmar (PW-58, Exh.250) spoke about
recovery of a gun-like object during a search, but he admitted that he
stayed outside, did not know what happened inside, did not identify any
present accused as the person who pointed out the place, and stated that
the person’s name was “Sonusingh”. His evidence therefore has limited
value for linking the recovery to any accused. The learned Sessions Court
rightly held that while recovery as a fact is proved, the identity of the
person pointing out the place is not established. Overall, the recoveries
support the investigation steps but cannot, by themselves, fix guilt
without reliable linkage evidence.

21. The FSL officer Tansukhbhai Nathalal Ashara (PW-84, Exh.296)
and the ballistic expert Hasmukhlal Thakorlal Modi (PW-85, Exh.305)
provided scientific evidence. Tansukhbhai Nathalal Ashara (PW-84,
Exh.296) examined the bus and the Indica car and proved inspection
reports (Exhs.297 and 298), noting recovery of two cartridge cases of
different calibres from inside the bus. In cross-examination, he accepted
that such cartridges are generally used in a service revolver, though no
such revolver was recovered. His evidence supports the fact of firing
inside the bus. Hasmukhlal Thakorlal Modi (PW-85, Exh.305) proved his
earlier deposition and ballistic reports on record. These reports show that
the cartridge cases and bullets were of two different calibres, supporting
the prosecution case that more than one firearm was used. However, the
reports do not prove that the seized weapon was the crime weapon.
Therefore, the reasoning that this evidence as proof of firing with

Page 26 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

different calibres avoided drawing unsupported conclusions does find
force. The non-recovery of a service revolver does not negate the
occurrence when multiple witnesses have consistently spoken about firing
as such there appears to be allegation of two different rather in contuation
of subsequent occurence.

22. In a nutshell, while the ballistic evidence did not conclusively link
the fatal bullets to the specific seized weapons, and the stricter legal
requirements for certain Arms Act provisions were not satisfied, this
cannot be a sole ground to refuse the use of arms, recovery of cartridges,
and ammunition as corroborative to the prosecution case. Mere acquittal
on the charges under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)(a), and 27(3) of the Arms
Act cannot be a ground to give a clean chit on the consequential incidents
and occurrences, as the main charges under IPC Sections 395 and 396
stand on independent footing. Furthermore, the suggestion that the
cartridge cases could be from a service revolver, in the absence of any
solid proof or material contradiction, is no ground to disbelieve the
depositions or testimony of the aforesaid witnesses regarding the use of
gunshots causing deaths. This is a mere suggestion by the defense, which
does not shake the core prosecution evidence. As such, there appears to
be allegations of two different rather in continuation of subsequent
occurrences, namely the firing inside the bus and at the checkpost during
escape, which form part of the same transaction under Section 223 CrPC.

23. The next contention is that the FSL report is late, which is
unreasonable to discard the entire evidence. The eyewitnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution, and the articles have been sent for
analysis. There is no ground to throw out the case of the prosecution
merely because of delay, as these are corroborative or supportive pieces
of evidence, cannot be discarded at threshold as this has to be taken into

Page 27 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

account, as delays in forensic submission do not vitiate the trial in
absence of proof of tampering.

24. In relation to the Arms Act charges, the evidence shows that
firearms were used and that arms, including a revolver/pistol and a
country-made weapon, were recovered during the investigation. The
ballistic evidence also confirms the use of 7.65 mm and 8 mm/.315
ammunition. However, the learned Sessions Court correctly distinguished
between proving general use or possession of arms and fixing liability
under specific provisions such as Section 25(1-A) and Section 27(3),
which require proof of prohibited arms or contravention of Section 7 and
a clear link between the weapon and the resulting death. Since the
ballistic evidence did not conclusively link the fatal bullets to the specific
seized weapons and the stricter legal requirements were not satisfied, the
refusal to convict under those provisions was legally sound. The acquittal
on these charges does not weaken the main prosecution case of dacoity
with murder.

25. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gulab Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2021, vide order dated 09.12.2021, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring and relying the cases of
Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1963) 3 SCR 585
and State of Punjab Vs. Jugraj Singh, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 234
has observed as under:

“18 However, a three-judge Bench of this Court, in Gurucharan Singh
v. State of Punjab, has analysed the precedents of this Court and held that
examination of a ballistic expert is not an inflexible rule in every case
involving use of a lethal weapon. Speaking through Justice P B
Gajendragadkar (as the learned Chief Justice then was), this Court held:

Page 28 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

“41. It has, however, been argued that in every case where an
accused person is charged with having committed the offence of
murder by a lethal weapon, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove
by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the
injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which, and in the
manner in which, they have been alleged to have been caused; and
in support of this proposition, reliance has been placed on the
decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. State [(1950) SCR
821] . In that case, this Court has held that where the prosecution
case was that the accused shot the deceased with a gun, but it
appeared likely that the injuries on the deceased were inflicted by a
rifle and there was no evidence of a duly qualified expert to prove
that the injuries were caused by a gun, and the nature of the injuries
was also such that the shots must have been fired by more than one
person and not by one person only, and there was no evidence to
show that another person also shot, and the oral evidence was such
which was not disinterested, the failure to examine an expert would
be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. It would be noticed
that these observations were made in a case where the prosecution
evidence suffered from serious infirmities and in determining the
effect of these observations, it would not be fair or reasonable to
forget the facts in respect of which they came to be made. These
observations do not purport to lay down an inflexible Rule that in
every case where an accused person is charged with murder caused
by a lethal weapon, the prosecution case can succeed in proving the
charge only if an expert is examined. It is possible to imagine cases
where the direct evidence is of such an unimpeachable character
and the nature of the injuries disclosed by post-mortem notes is so
clearly consistent with the direct evidence that the examination of a
ballistic expert may not be regarded as essential. Where the direct
evidence is not satisfactory or disinterested or where the injuries
are alleged to have been caused with a gun and they prima facie
appear to have been inflicted by a rifle, undoubtedly the apparent
inconsistency can be cured or the oral evidence can be corroborated
by leading the evidence of a ballistic expert. In what cases the
examination of a ballistic expert is essential for the proof of the
prosecution case, must naturally depend upon the circumstances of
each case. Therefore, we do not think that Mr Purushottam is right
in contending as a general proposition that in every case where a

Page 29 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

firearm is alleged to have been used by an accused person, in
addition to the direct evidence, prosecution must lead the evidence
of a ballistic expert, however good the direct evidence may be and
though on the record there may be no reason to doubt the said
direct evidence.”

19 Similarly, a two-judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v.
Jugraj Singh6 had noticed that surrounding circumstances in the
prosecution case are sufficient to prove a death caused by a lethal weapon,
without a ballistic examination of the recovered weapon. The Court,
speaking through Justice R P Sethi, had noted:

“18. In the instant case the investigating officer has categorically
stated that guns seized were not in a working condition and he, in
his discretion, found that no purpose would be served by sending the
same to the ballistic expert for his opinion. No further question was
put to the investigating officer in cross-examination to find out
whether despite the guns being defective the fire pin was in order or
not. In the presence of convincing evidence of two eyewitnesses and
other attending circumstances we do not find that the non-
examination of the expert in this case has, in any way, affected the
creditworthiness of the version put forth by the eyewitnesses.”

26. The defence argued that because the bus conductor made an
immediate call to the “100 number”, that call should be treated as the first
information under Section 154 Cr.P.C., and therefore the later complaint
should be treated only as a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. However,
the record does not show that the control-room call contained sufficient
details to clearly describe the offence or to set the criminal law in motion
with a definite version. It is also not shown that the police started the
investigation solely on the basis of that call. The formal complaint was
recorded later in a lawful manner and was correctly treated as the FIR.

27. With regard to the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section
120B IPC, the learned Sessions Court correctly held that the essential

Page 30 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

requirement of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an
illegal act is not proved. There is no direct or strong circumstantial
evidence on record to establish such an agreement. The prosecution
evidence shows participation in the dacoity and the related murders, but it
does not independently and satisfactorily prove a prior meeting of minds
amounting to conspiracy. The acquittal under Section 120B therefore
does not require interference and does not affect the validity of the
remaining convictions.

28. Consequently, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that when the Bhuj Talaja route bus reached the place of occurrence, the
accused, who were travelling as passengers and were armed with
firearms, committed dacoity, caused the deaths of the driver Baldev
Jashubha and the Angadiya employee Amrutji Galabhai, and looted the
passengers and Angadiya parcels, after which they escaped in an Indica
car. The involvement of Ravindrasingh @ Bablu, Abidkhan Ijmatkhan,
Rupesh, and Alkesh @ Akhilesh is established mainly through reliable
identification evidence and supporting circumstances. At the same time,
the learned Sessions Court rightly concluded that the case against the
other accused (Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9, as noted) was not proved to the
required standard by the prosecution which culminated in their acquittal
which does not warrant any interference. In nutshell, the balanced
approach of convicting where the evidence is clear and acquitting where
doubt remains shows proper judicial reasoning and gives no reason for
any interference.

29. In conclusion, after carefully examining all the evidence before the
learned Sessions Court, it is clear that the prosecution has proved, by a
complete chain of circumstances, the guilt of the convicted appellants
beyond reasonable doubt, and it is also clear that there is not sufficient

Page 31 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

proof against the respondents who have been acquitted. The incident
began on 20.08.2010 at about 7:00 p.m. in the Bhuj-Talaja route bus,
where 4 armed persons, including the appellants, boarded as passengers,
showed firearms, and when resistance was offered, fired upon the driver
Baldev Jashubha and Angadiya employee Amrutji Galabhai, thereafter
looted valuables including Angadiya parcels worth lakhs, and escaped in
an Indica car, and while escaping they also fired at a police checkpost; all
these acts form one continuous incident and amount to dacoity with
murder under Sections 395 and 396 IPC. This version is supported by the
evidence of key witnesses, including the bus conductor Ranvijaysinh
Jinakubha Godhal (PW-92), who described the sequence and identified
the appellants Abidkhan, Alkesh, and Rupesh in the identification
parades; the complainant Ashokkumar Gopaldas Nai (PW-47), whose
version about firing and looting broadly supports the prosecution case
even though he not thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution, but
other passengers eyewitnesses such as PW-15, PW-16, PW-21, PW-34,
PW-71, PW-72, whose depositions about the violent incident are
consistent and have not been shaken in cross-examination, and minor
differences are natural due to fear, confusion, and darkness. The
prosecution case is further supported by medical evidence of Dr. Sadiq
Husain Gulam Mahmud Momin (PW-1), confirming homicidal deaths
due to gunshot injuries and indicating different calibers, and by scientific
evidence of FSL experts (PW-84, PW-85) showing use of multiple
firearms and recovery of cartridges; therefore, the defence arguments
about delay, ballistic mismatch, or procedural lapses do not affect the
core reliable evidence, and the position is supported by the principles
stated in decisions such as Tahir Mohammad v. Kamad Girendra Singh
on TIP and State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli in dacoity
matters.

Page 32 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

30. Furthermore, the identification parades were conducted with proper
safeguards by Executive Magistrates (PW-93, PW-94) and are supported
by panch evidence, and these proceedings clearly connect the appellants
Rustomsing @ Bablu, Abidkhan, Alkesh @ Akhilesh, and Rupendra @
Rupesh with the offence, making their involvement proved. However, as
regards the acquitted accused (Nos. 2-4, 6-9), the chain of evidence is
incomplete because necessary links are missing, and therefore the learned
Sessions Court was justified in acquitting them. The investigation is
supported by police witnesses (PW-100 to PW-105) and panchnamas, and
there is no material to show tampering, malice, or false implication;
similarly, the defences such as treating the conductor’s call as the real
FIR or alleging personal grudge are not supported by any proof. The
acquittal under Section 120B IPC and under certain Arms Act provisions
is because conspiracy and strict weapon-to-death linkage were not
proved, but this does not weaken the main conviction under Sections 395
and 396 IPC, and mere suggestions of ballistic issues, such as use of a
service revolver, are only assumptions and cannot outweigh trustworthy
eyewitness evidence about firearm use, as held in State of U.P. v. Sukhpal
Singh. Overall, the trial court’s appreciation of evidence is balanced,
reasoned, and not perverse, and therefore does not require interference.

31. Thus, the appeals against conviction, namely Criminal Appeal Nos.
2291 of 2019, 6 of 2020,240 of 2020, and 241 of 2020, have no merit
because the findings in the impugned judgment are based on reliable
evidence discussed above and deserve to be upheld considering the
seriousness of the offence and public safety. Likewise, the State’s appeal
against acquittal, Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2020, also fails because
there are no sufficient grounds to interfere with the acquittal, and the trial
court’s decision to acquit the said respondents is reasoned and calls for no
interference.

Page 33 of 34
R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

32. In view of the forgoing reasons, the conviction appeals being
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2291 of 2019, 6 of 2020, 240 of 2020, and 241 of
2020 with Criminal Misc.Application (for suspension of sentence) No. 1
of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2020 are dismissed. The acquittal
appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2020 is also dismissed. Bail
bonds, if any, stands canceled. The records be transmitted to the learned
Sessions Court 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 23/01/2026 16:01:53

Page 34 of 34