Holding

The appellate court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution did not establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal of two accused, Mahmad alias Batuk Karim Mir and GaCar alias Nazir Valibhai Ghanchi, for the murder of Ganeshnath Mohannath. The prosecution alleged that the accused, acting in concert, stabbed the deceased with a knife over a loan dispute, but the only eyewitnesses were the complainant and his wife, who turned hostile and could not identify the assailants. Medical evidence confirmed homicidal death by stab wounds, yet no reliable identification or corroborative circumstantial evidence linked the accused to the crime. An extra‑judicial confession presented by a police informant was deemed unreliable and coerced. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and affirmed the trial court’s acquittal, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the extra‑judicial confession is admissible and reliable.
Whether the appellate court can set aside an acquittal under Section 378 CrPC in the absence of compelling evidence.

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Acts. 135, s. 37(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 378
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 302

Subjects

murderacquittalappeal against acquittalburden of proofidentification of accusedextra‑judicial confessiondouble presumption of innocenceevidence appraisalCriminal Procedure CodeIndian Penal Code

Judgment

R/CR.A/539/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 539 of 2001

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

=========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MOHMMED @ BATUK KARIMBHAI MEER & ANR.
=========================================
Appearance:
MR J K SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 15/01/2026

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

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatis:ed with the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 7.4.2001 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gondal in the Sessions Case No. 02 of 2000 arising
from Gondal City Police Station pertaining to the alleged murder of
Ganeshnath Mohannath, whereby both the respondents-accused
were acquitted of the oCences punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1) read
with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – State of
Gujarat has preferred the present criminal appeal under Section
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short),
seeking leave to appeal against the said acquittal and praying for

Page 1 of 10
R/CR.A/539/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026

setting aside the impugned judgment by convicting the
respondents-accused in accordance with law.

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

2.1. As per the prosecution case, on 13.9.1999 at around 7:45
p.m. on the new road near Bhojpara in Gondal town, District
Rajkot, the accused No. 2, GaCar alias Nazir Valibhai Ghanchi,
being provoked and enraged over the persistent demand made by
the deceased Ganeshnath Mohan Nath for repayment of a loan
amount of ₹4,500/- that the deceased had earlier lent to the co-
accused No. 1, Mahmad alias Batuk Karim Mir (who is the brother-
in-law of accused No. 2), stopped the rickshaw which he was
driving (with accused No. 1 Mahmad alias Batuk sitting as a
passenger therein), alighted from the vehicle, and launched a
sudden and premeditated attack on the deceased Ganeshnath
Mohan Nath by repeatedly stabbing him with a sharp-edged knife.
The blows were inJicted with such force and precision on vital
parts i.e. two on the right side of the chest (one of which pierced
the lung), one near the collarbone, and another on the left
abdomen resulting in grievous and fatal injuries, including profuse
bleeding and protrusion of intestines, clearly demonstrating an
intention to cause death. The deceased collapsed immediately at
the spot, and despite being rushed to Gondal Government Hospital
in an ambulance by the complainant Kailas Bajrangdas Bavaji and
his wife Rekha alias Rajiya, he was declared brought dead by the
duty medical oCicer. The motive stemmed directly from the
deceased's visit earlier that evening to accused No. 2's house in
Kumharwada area to recover the outstanding loan amount, which
provoked accused No. 2 to commit the act, while accused No. 1
actively abetted and assisted in the commission of the oCence. Both

Page 2 of 10
R/CR.A/539/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026

accused, acting in concert and aiding each other, also violated the
District Magistrate’s proclamation restricting possession of arms
by using the knife as a deadly weapon, thereby committing
culpable homicide amounting to murder. The complainant and his
wife, who were present throughout as eye-witnesses accompanying
the deceased, witnessed the entire assault but were in shock and
unable to note the rickshaw registration number as the accused
Jed the scene immediately thereafter. Accordingly, FIR being
Gondal City Police Station came to be registered for the aforesaid
oCences. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was :led
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondal, and the
case was committed to the Sessions Court where it was registered
as the present Sessions Case.

3. On conclusion of evidence, the Sessions Court put various
incriminating circumstances to the respondent-accused under
Section 313 of the Code. The respondent-accused denied all
allegations and claimed to be innocent. After hearing both sides,
the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-accused.

4. We have heard learned APP for the State and examined the
oral and documentary evidence adduced before the sessions Court.

5. Learned APP submits that the impugned order of acquittal is
required to be set aside because the evidence of the complainant
and his wife (eye-witnesses) supported the presence at the scene
and the medical evidence fully corroborates the injuries caused by
a knife. He therefore prays for allowing the appeal.

6. The incident in question occurred on 13.9.1999 at
approximately 7:45 p.m. near the Kothari Oil Products factory on

Page 3 of 10
R/CR.A/539/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026

the new road in Gondal, during hours of darkness as admitted in
the evidence. The prosecution's case entirely hinges on the alleged
presence of three persons at the spot: the deceased Ganeshnath,
who was pushing his Luna moped, the complainant Kailas
Bajrangdas, who was pushing his cycle, and his wife Rekhaben
alias Rajiya, who was walking alongside them. According to the
prosecution narrative, the deceased had come to Gondal to recover
a loan of ₹4,500/- from Accused No. 1, Mahmad alias Batuk Karim
Mir, and the trio had visited the house of Accused No. 2 in
Kumharwada but found no one there except the younger sister and
child of Accused No. 2. While proceeding further in search of
Accused No. 1, a rickshaw allegedly approached from the opposite
direction, from which the attackers alighted and assaulted the
deceased. However, there are no independent witnesses to this
occurrence, and the only two purported eye-witnesses, namely the
complainant and his wife, have not supported the prosecution's
version regarding the identity of the assailants, thereby leaving the
case without any direct ocular evidence linking the accused to the
crime.

7. The medical evidence on record conclusively establishes that
the death of Ganeshnath was homicidal, caused by multiple
penetrating stab wounds on vital parts such as the chest, abdomen,
and shoulder, inJicted by a sharp cutting instrument consistent
with a knife, and these injuries were suCicient in the ordinary
course to cause death. This aspect of the medical testimony is
reliable and unchallenged. However, the crucial link of identifying
the perpetrators remains wholly unestablished. The prosecution
relied solely on two eye-witnesses: complainant Kailas Bajrangdas
at Ext.11 and his wife Rekhaben alias Rajiya at Ext.13. Kailas, in his
testimony, admitted the darkness prevailing at the time and

Page 4 of 10
R/CR.A/539/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026

categorically stated that although a rickshaw approached and
someone alighted to attack the deceased before Jeeing, he could
not identify the attackers due to the lack of light. He was declared
hostile by the prosecution, and even upon cross-examination, he
steadfastly refused to name or implicate either accused. Similarly,
Rekhaben denied knowledge of the loan transaction, denied
accompanying the deceased and her husband to Accused No. 2's
house, and outright denied her presence at the scene or witnessing
any attack, leading to her also being declared hostile. Thus, both
witnesses, who are closely related to the Accused No. 1 being
Rekhaben's maternal uncle and Accused No. 2 being the husband
of her maternal aunt failed to provide any identi:cation or
corroboration, rendering their evidence entirely unhelpful to the
prosecution.

8. The prime witnesses, namely the complainant Kailas
Bajrangdas as well as his wife Rekhaben alias Rajiya, were
projected by the prosecution as the material eye-witnesses to the
occurrence. However, both these witnesses have not supported the
case of the prosecution in any manner and have turned hostile. Not
only that, these witnesses have expressed reluctance in implicating
the accused persons, who are their close relatives, and have
refrained from attributing the incident in question to them. A
further signi:cant factor that substantially undermines the
prosecution's case is the absence of any reliable corroborative
evidence beyond the failed eye-witness accounts. So far as the
alleged extra-judicial confession made before the prosecution
witness Rasik Manji is concerned, the same has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt. The said witness Rasik Manji himself
turned hostile and, in his defence cross-examination, admitted to
police pressure and his own unreliability owing to pending

Page 5 of 10
R/CR.A/539/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026

Prohibition Act cases against him. In his chief examination, Rasik
vaguely stated that Accused No. 1 said "In Gondal, a murder has
been committed by me," which lacks speci:city to the present
oCence. He explicitly stated that no such confession was voluntarily
made to him, and that he was arrested alongside the accused for
drinking, following which the police allegedly pressured him to
attribute a confession statement to the accused. The police
personnel may have supported the prosecution's stance in this
regard, but they otherwise cannot be treated as material witnesses
having personal knowledge of the confession, and their evidence
alone cannot form the sole ground to convict the accused. Given
Rasik's background and his admission of police coercion, this
evidence cannot be considered reliable or trustworthy. Moreover,
there is no discovery of the muddamal knife proved through
credible panch witnesses, and no other circumstantial evidence
links the accused to the weapon or the scene. The close familial ties
between the witnesses and the accused further explain the
reluctance to implicate, but this only highlights the lack of
independent proof.

9. In light of the foregoing, the prosecution has utterly failed to
establish the identity of the assailants beyond reasonable doubt.
The only purported direct evidence from the two eye-witnesses
collapses entirely due to their hostility, admissions of darkness
impairing visibility, and complete denial of incriminatory facts. The
extra-judicial confession, being weak, vague, retracted, and
emanating from an unreliable source admitting police pressure,
carries no evidentiary value without independent corroboration,
which is conspicuously absent. No test identi:cation or other
procedural safeguards were employed to bolster identi:cation. The
medical evidence, while proving homicidal death through stab

Page 6 of 10
R/CR.A/539/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026

injuries possibly caused by a knife-like weapon, does not bridge the
evidentiary gap in attributing those injuries to the present accused
persons. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge in
discarding the evidence of these hostile eye-witnesses and the
unreliable extra-judicial confession, and in extending the bene:t of
doubt to the accused, is correct, proper, and in consonance with
settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. In these
circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly
concluded that it is unsafe and impermissible to base a conviction
on such fragile and in:rm evidence. The view adopted by the
sessions Court, acquitting the accused, is not merely a possible
view but the only reasonable and plausible view emerging from the
totality of the evidence on record, fully justifying the bene:t of
doubt extended to the accused. No interference is called for with
the well-reasoned order of acquittal.

10. It is a well-entrenched principle of criminal jurisprudence
that in an appeal against an order of acquittal, there operates a
double presumption in favour of the accused. The appellate Court
is not to interfere with the acquittal merely because a contrary
view appears arguable or possible; interference is warranted only if
the :ndings of the sessions Court are demonstrated to be perverse,
capricious, or wholly unsustainable on the evidence. In the present
case, far from being perverse, the sessions Court's appreciation of
evidence is meticulous, logical, and grounded in the glaring
de:ciencies in the prosecution case.

11. Additionally, the prosecution's failure extends to the ancillary
charge under the Bombay Police Act, with no evidence whatsoever
proving that Accused No. 2 was in possession of the muddamal
knife in contravention of any proclamation. The police evidence,

Page 7 of 10
R/CR.A/539/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026

standing alone without support from ocular or circumstantial
sources, remains insuCicient to sustain any of the charges, whether
of murder or abetment thereof. The totality of the material
underscores a complete lack of proof linking either accused to the
fatal injuries inJicted on the deceased. Consequently, the acquittal
of both Accused No. 1, Mahmad alias Batuk Karim Mir, and
Accused No. 2, GaCar alias Nazir Valibhai Ghanchi, under Section
302 read with Section 114 IPC and the provisions of the Bombay
Police Act is impeccably reasoned, legally sound, and calls for no
appellate interference whatsoever.

12. The judgment of the sessions Court dated 7th April 2001,
pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal,
correctly applied the principles governing appreciation of evidence
in criminal trials, particularly the requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt in cases resting on direct evidence that has
crumbled under scrutiny. The order of acquittal, coupled with
directions regarding custody and muddamal, reJects a judicious
exercise of discretion fully commensurate with the evidentiary
voids exposed during the trial. Thus, the prosecution's endeavour
to secure conviction stands rightfully thwarted by the
insurmountable barriers of unreliable witnesses, absent
corroboration, and fundamental doubts permeating the case.

13. At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of
Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471] encapsulated the legal
position covering the :eld after considering various earlier
judgments and held as below: -

“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled
out the following general principles regarding the powers of the

Page 8 of 10
R/CR.A/539/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026

appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order
acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case
[Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415]

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of the appellate
court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.

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

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling
reasons”, “good and su4icient grounds”, “very strong
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”,
etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of “5ourishes of language” to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than
to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, rea4irmed and strengthened by
the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb
the 7nding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

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

Page 9 of 10
R/CR.A/539/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026

“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible
view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence
on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a 7nding that the only conclusion which can
be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the
guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and
no other conclusion was possible.”

15. In the light of the above discussion and the settled legal
position, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
respondents-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned
judgment and order of acquittal dated 7th April 2001 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal in the Sessions Case No.
02 of 2000 does not call for any interference.

16. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The judgment and order of acquittal is con:rmed. Records and
Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/01/2026 11:39:32

Page 10 of 10