STATE OF GUJARATversusBHURABHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI SURELA

      R/CR.A/563/2003                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                        R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 563 of 2003


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN                                Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS                    Sd/-
================================================================

              Approved for Reporting                Yes            No
                                                   ✔
================================================================
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
                                  Versus
                  BHURABHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI SURELA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
YAGNESHKUMAR S JOSHI(8074) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
================================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS

                                Date : 21/02/2026
                                ORAL JUDGMENT

               (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS)


1.       The present appeal preferred under Section 378 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.01.2003 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case


                                    Page 1 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                            JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




No.118 of 2000, whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted

all the accused persons from the charges levelled against them

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 504, 147,

148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.



         PROSECUTION’S VERSION IN NUT-SHELL :


2.1      It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant

Popatbhai Gobarbhai Koli had filed a complaint, inter alia,

stating that on 03.06.2000 at around 9 O’clock in the night,

there was an uproar/ruckus in the vicinity, therefore, he came

out of his house, where he saw exchange of words between his

uncle - Kalubhai Manjibhai, his cousin - Naranbhai Savjibhai,

and       the      accused   Bhurabhai      Dharamshibhai,        Babubhai

Bhurabhai, Bhupatbhai Bhurabhai and Dakubhai Bhurabhai. It

is further the case of the prosecution, as per the complaint, that

the accused persons were quarreling regarding collection of

firewood and hurling abuses, therefore, the complainant had told

them not to utter filthy language.



2.2      As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant has

further stated in his complaint that in the alleged incident which



                                 Page 2 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                                JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




had occurred on 03.06.2000 at around 9 O’clock in the night,

the accused Babubhai Bhurabhai Koli got agitated and inflicted

Axe blows on the forehead of the complainant, on the right-hand

elbow of his uncle Kalubhai Manjibhai and on the head of

Naranbhai Savjibhai; whereas, the accused Dakubhai Bhurabhai

Koli had inflicted a spear blow on the abdomen of Kalubhai

Manjibhai and the accused Bhupatbhai Bhurabhai had inflicted

a sword blow on the left-hand of Naranbhai Savjibhai. It is

further the case of the prosecution that on hearing the outcry,

the co-accused Kantaben, wife of Bhupatbhai Bhurabhai;

Savitaben, wife of Bhurabhai Dharamshibhai, and Lilyben

Mavjibhai came running out and started pelting stones on the

complainant - Popatbhai Gobarbhai, the injured - Kalubhai

Manjibhai and the deceased - Naranbhai Savjibhai. Thereafter,

Jivtiben Kalubhai, Savitaben Naranbhai, Samjuben and other

ladies saved the complainant and the injured from further

assault by the accused persons.



2.3      It is the case of the prosecution that the injured were

rushed to the Government Hospital, Dhari, and thereafter the

complainant             (PW-1)   Popatbhai      Gobarbhai    had     filed        the

complaint before the Dhari Police Station on 03.06.2000. The


                                     Page 3 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




injured Naranbhai Savjibhai Koli succumbed to the injuries

during the treatment at the Junagadh Hospital.



3.       On the basis of the complaint, an offence came to be

registered against the respondents-accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 324, 504, 147, 148 and 149 of

the Indian Penal Code vide I-CR No.37 of 2000 registered before

the      Dhari          Police   Station.    Thereafter,        the     investigation

commenced and the Investigating Officer prepared a panchnama

of the place of the incident (Exh.39), inquest panchnama

(Exh.46),         arrest     panchnama         of     the    respondents-accused

(Exh.40), took the blood samples of the deceased for examination

vide panchnama (Exh.48), muddamal panchnama (Exh.54) and

recorded the statement of the relevant witnesses.



4.       After completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be

filed against the respondents-accused before the learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Dhari, which was registered as Criminal

Case No.562 of 2000. Thereafter, since the case was exclusively

triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the

Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, under

Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was



                                       Page 4 of 26
     R/CR.A/563/2003                             JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




numbered as the Sessions Case No.118 of 2000. Since the

respondents-accused pleaded innocence, the trial was held.



5.      To prove the guilt against the respondents, the prosecution

has examined in all ten witnesses and produced nineteen

documentary evidence, which are as follows :-


                                WITNESSES

Sr.                    Description of the document                   Exhibit
No.

 1     Deposition of the Witness No.1 – Popatbhai Gobarbhai             22

 2     Deposition of the Witness No.2 – Savitaben Naranbhai             25

 3     Deposition of the Witness No.3 – Dr.Mahmadbhai                   27
       Usmanbhai

 4     Deposition of the Witness No.4 – Dr.Pravinbhai Ramji             31

 5     Deposition of the Witness No.5 – Dr.Sumit Bharatbhai             35

 6     Deposition of the Witness No.6 – Himmatbhai Somabhai             38

 7     Deposition of the Witness No.7 – Pratapbhai Nankubhai            53

 8     Deposition of the Witness No.8 – Kalubhai Manjibhai              55

 9     Deposition of the Witness No.9 – Udesinh Bhupatbhai              56

 10 Deposition of the Witness No.10 – Nazabhai Chhanabhai               57
    Chauhan, Investigating Officer




                                  Page 5 of 26
    R/CR.A/563/2003                               JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




                       DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Sr.                   Description of the document                     Exhibit
No.

1     Complaint by Popatbhai Gobarbhai                                   23

2     Police Yaadi                                                       28

3     Death Certificate                                                  29

4     Postmortem Note                                                    30

5     Medical Certificate of Naran Savji                                 32

6     Medical Certificate of Popatbhai Gobarbhai                         33

7     Medical Certificate of Kalubhai Manjibhai                          34

8     Medical Certificate of Naran Savji issued by Junagadh              36
      doctor

9     Case-papers issued by Junagadh Hospital                            37

10 Panchnama of the scene of offences                                    39

11 Arrest Panchnama of the Accused                                       40

12 Report submitted to the P.S.O., Dhari, by the P.S.I.,                 45
   Dhari, for registration of the offence

13 Inquest Panchnama                                                     46

14 Receipt of handing over dead-body of the deceased                     47
   Naranbhai to Savjibhai

15 Panchnama of blood sample obtained of the deceased                    48
   Naranbhai for examination



                                 Page 6 of 26
     R/CR.A/563/2003                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




 16 Map of the scene of offence prepared by the Circle                            49
    Inspector, Taluka Panchayat, Dhari

 17 Receipt of muddamal received by the Chemical Analyzer                         50
    along with the counterfoil of the muddamal

 18 Examination Report along with the forwarding letter of                        51
    the Chemical Analyzer and the Serological Department

 19 Arrest Panchnama of Daku Bhurabhai and Babu Bhura                             54
    as well as the Muddamal Panchnama




6.      At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the

accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

and considering the arguments canvassed on behalf of the

prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Vadodara, vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2003,

acquitted the respondents-accused from all the charges, by

giving them the benefit of doubt.



7.      Being          aggrieved    and   dissatisfied    with     the    aforesaid

judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-State has

preferred the present appeal.



8.      Heard learned APP Ms.Jyoti Bhatt for the appellant-State

and      learned         advocate    Mr.Yagneshkumar          S.Joshi       for       the

respondent-accused.


                                      Page 7 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                               JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




9.       Learned APP Ms.Bhatt appearing for the appellant-State

has vehemently contended that the impugned judgment and

order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli,

is against the provisions of law and the learned Sessions Judge

has      not      properly   appreciated     the   evidence     led    by        the

prosecution. Moreover, on a bare perusal of the provisions of law

itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved the

offence against the respondents-accused by leading cogent

evidence.



10.      Learned APP Ms.Bhatt, while taking this Court through the

oral as well as the documentary evidence, has submitted that

the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai,

who himself is an injured eye-witness, the evidence of the

injured (PW-8) Kalubhai Manjibhai and the eye-witness (PW-2)

Savitaben Naranbhai, clearly establishes the complicity of the

respondents-accused in the alleged offence. Learned APP has

submitted that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses are duly

corroborated by the medical evidence. Learned APP Ms.Bhatt has

further submitted that the star witnesses, in their respective

evidence, have described the incident minutely and also stated


                                   Page 8 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




the details as to which accused had inflicted how many blows on

which part of their body and with which weapon. Hence, there

remains no doubt about the complicity of the respondents-

accused in the alleged offence. Ms.Bhatt has further submitted

that      the     evidence   of   the   complainant       (PW-1)        Popatbhai

Gobarbhai, the injured witness (PW-8) Kalubhai Manjibhai and

the      eye-witness    (PW-2)     Savitaben       Naranbhai,      if    read      in

juxtaposition with the medical evidence, it clearly establishes the

fact that the accused persons had inflicted blows with axe, spear

and sword on the complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai, the

injured eye-witness (PW-8) Kalubhai Manjibhai and the deceased

Naran Savji. Learned APP Ms.Bhatt has, therefore, submitted

that the trial court has given undue importance to the minor

omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses.

She has, therefore, submitted that there was no reason for the

trial court to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and to acquit

the respondents-accused.



11.      At the outset, it is required to be noted that the principles

which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this

Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial court have

been very succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in a catena


                                    Page 9 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs.

State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39, the

Supreme Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court

in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the

decision, the Supreme Court has observed as under:


         “54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal
         treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact
         exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising
         an appellate power against a judgement of acquittal, the
         High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled
         principles of law that where two view are possible, the
         appellate court should not interfere with the finding of
         acquittal recorded by the court below.”



12.      Further, in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of

Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Supreme Court

laid down the following principles:


         “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.


                                      Page 10 of 26
R/CR.A/563/2003                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




   [2]      The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 sufficient grounds’, ‘very
   strong         circumstances’,       ‘distorted    conclusions’,          ‘glaring
   mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers
   of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
   phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of
   language’ to emphasis 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,
   reaffirmed 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 finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”


                                    Page 11 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                            JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




13.      Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate

power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the

basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not

disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.



14.      Even, in the case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran &

Anr. reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the

powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said

decision the Court has observed as under :


         “16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while
         exercising the powers in appeal against the order of
         acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere
         with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower
         Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the
         conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any
         reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
         characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are
         possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which
         would upset the judgement delivered by the Court below.
         However, the appellate court has a power to review the
         evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by
         the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a
         manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on


                                 Page 12 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                            JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




         record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such
         circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a
         just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find
         out whether any of the accused is connected with the
         commission of the crime he is charged with.”




15.      It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal,

the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgement or

to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the court

below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs.

Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417, wherein it is held as

under :


         “…..This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi vs.
         Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93 : (AIR 1967
         SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it
         agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to
         repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the
         reasons given by the trial court expression of general
         agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision
         of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”




16.      Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasoning

and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of


                                 Page 13 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                         JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




evidence is not necessary. Keeping in mind the aforesaid

principles, the Court has to appreciated the evidence on record.



17.      We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

judgement and order passed by the trial court. We have also

perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial

court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP

for the appellant-State. It is settled position of law, as well as the

basic requirement for the prosecution, to prove the case against

the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, expected

that the evidence led by the prosecution must inspire confidence.

While appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence,

we found some serious discrepancies and contradictions in the

evidence of the witnesses.



18.      Further, considering the Charge at Exh.2 and the original

complaint at Exh.23, the case of the prosecution is that, at the

time of the alleged incident, which had occurred on 03.06.2000

at 9 O’clock in the night regarding collection of firewood, the

accused Babubhai Bhurabhai Koli got agitated and inflicted Axe

blows on the forehead of the complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai

Gobarbhai, on the right-hand elbow of the injured (PW-8)


                              Page 14 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                        JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




Kalubhai Manjibhai and on the head of the deceased Naranbhai

Savjibhai. At the same time, the accused Dakubhai Bhurabhai

Koli had inflicted a spear blow on the abdomen of the injured

Kalubhai Manjibhai and the accused Bhupatbhai Bhurabhai had

inflicted a sword blow on the left-hand of the deceased

Naranbhai Savjibhai. From the aforesaid, it appears that the

complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai, the injured (PW-8)

Kalubhai Manjibhai and the wife of the deceased (PW-2)

Savitaben Naranbhai, who is also the eye-witness to the

incident, are the star witnesses of the case and, therefore, their

evidence is required to be scrutinized carefully.



19.      The complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai is examined

by the prosecution at Exh.22, who, in his evidence, has

supported the case of the prosecution and stated that at the time

of the alleged incident which had occurred on 03.06.2000 at 9

O’clock in the night, on hearing the uproar/ruckus in the

vicinity, he came out of his house, where he saw the accused

persons quarreling with his uncle - Kalubhai Manjibhai and his

cousin - Naranbhai Savjibhai regarding collection of firewood

and were hurling abuses, therefore, he had told them not to

utter filthy language. The complainant has specifically stated


                             Page 15 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                          JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




that during the scuffle, the accused Babubhai Bhurabhai Koli

got agitated and inflicted Axe blows on his forehead, on the

right-hand elbow of his uncle Kalubhai Manjibhai and on the

head of his cousin - deceased Naranbhai Savjibhai. The

complainant has further stated that at the same time, the

accused Dakubhai Bhurabhai Koli had inflicted a spear blow on

the abdomen of his uncle Kalubhai Manjibhai, whereas the

accused Bhupatbhai Bhurabhai had inflicted a sword blow on

the left-hand of his cousin – deceased Naranbhai Savjibhai. He

has also stated that on hearing the outcry, the other co-accused

Kantaben, wife of Bhupatbhai Bhurabhai; Savitaben, wife of

Bhurabhai Dharamshibhai, and Lilyben Mavjibhai came running

out and started pelting stones on him, his uncle Kalubhai

Manjibhai and his cousin Naranbhai Savjibhai. Thereafter,

Jivtiben Kalubhai, Savitaben Naranbhai, Samjuben and other

ladies saved them and they took them to the hospital for

treatment, and during the treatment, his cousin – Naranbhai

Savjibhai succumbed to the injuries.



20.      Considering the aforesaid evidence given by this witness in

his examination-in-chief, it is undoubtedly clear that the

incident had occurred at 9 O’clock in the night. However, this


                               Page 16 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                         JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




witness has stated that at the time of the alleged incident, he

and the accused Bhurabhai Dharamshibhai were having torch

with them, and during the quarrel, the accused Bhura had

placed the torch on the mound and assaulting him, the injured

and the deceased. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint at

Exh.23, there is no mention regarding the torch. During the

cross-examination, it has also been revealed that for the same

incident, cross-complaint was also filed, and regarding the same,

the complainant was also arrested. This witness has also elicited

that in the complaint at Exh.23, there is no mention regarding

the torch, however, he has stated that he had informed about

the same to the police, but it has not been recorded by the police

in the complaint. It is pertinent to note here that the

Investigating Officer (PW-10) Nazabhai Chhanabhai Chauhan, in

his evidence at Exh.57, has specifically stated that the

complainant, in his further statement recorded by him, has not

stated that he and the accused Bhura were having torch with

them at the time of the alleged incident.



21.      The prosecution has also examined the eye-witness (PW-2)

Savitaben Naranbhai. This witness is the wife of the deceased

Naranbhai Savjibhai. She, in her examination-in-chief, has


                              Page 17 of 26
   R/CR.A/563/2003                          JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




supported the case of the prosecution and stated that during the

scuffle, the accused Babu Bhura had inflicted Axe blows on on

the forehead of Popatbhai Gobarbhai, on the right-hand elbow of

Kalubhai Manjibhai and on the head of her husband Naranbhai

Savjibhai, due to which, her husband Naranbhai Savjibhai

succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. During her

cross-examination,   she    has     made    several     contradictory

statements. On one hand, she stated that she had witnessed the

entire incident since the accused Bhura had a torch with him,

which was kept on the mound at the time of the alleged incident,

and the complainant Popatbhai Gobarbhai was also having a

torch with him. However, on the other hand, she has stated that

at the time of the alleged incident, there was a complete dark,

due to which, it was not possible to identify anyone. She has also

elicited that she does not know even as to who inflicted injury

with which weapon to whom and on which part of the body. She

has further elicited that since she was shocked due to the death

of her husband, she was not in a position to give the details to

the police, however, the complainant Popatbhai Gobarbhai had

provided the details to the police and the same were recorded by

the police on her behalf. She has elicited that she does not know

as to who had caused injuries to the complainant Popatbhai


                            Page 18 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                         JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




Gobarbhai and the injured Kalubhai Manjibhai. She has also

elicited that when she reached the place of the incident, her

husband was lying on the ground and was bleeding profusely.



22.      Now, in this context, if we consider the evidence of the

injured (PW-8) Kalubhai Manjibhai, it appears that he, in his

evidence at Exh.55, has initially tried to support the case of the

prosecution and stated the same thing as narrated by the

complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai, however, during his

cross-examination, he has elicited that the incident had

occurred in the night at around 9 O’clock on a public place

where there was no light and it was completely dark. He has

further elicited that during the scuffle, there was stone pelting

from both the sides and, therefore, it could not be ascertained as

to who, from which side, got injured. This witness has further

elicited that at the time of the alleged incident, the complainant

(PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai, the deceased Naranbhai Savjibhai

and the eye-witness (PW-2) Savitben Naranbhai were not having

any torch. He has specifically stated that as the eye-witness

Savitaben Naranbhai had informed them to look about the

deceased Naranbhai Savjibhai, they went there. However, due to

darkness, it was not possible for them to ascertain the injuries


                              Page 19 of 26
   R/CR.A/563/2003                           JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




sustained by the deceased Naranbhai Savjibhai. He has further

elicited that at the time of taking the treatment, he and the

complainant Popatbhai Gobarbhai both had similarly stated

before the doctor that they got injured due to stone pelting by

the accused. It also reveals from the evidence of this witness that

he since they were having doubt that the accused Bhura might

file a complaint against them, therefore, he as well as the

complainant Popatbhai Gobarbhai and the eye-witness (PW-2)

Savitaben Naranbhai had discussed and decided how the

incident to be narrated and the statement to be given before the

police; whose name is to be given; and which weapon & what

role to be attributed to which accused. The injured Kalubhai

Manjibhai has also elicited that since it was complete dark, it

was not at all possible for them to identify anyone, as well as

describe with certainty as to who, with which weapon and on

which part of the body caused injury to whom. It reveals from

the cross-examination of this witness that after their discharge

from the hospital, they all went to their home and ultimately he

as well as the complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai and the

eye-witness (PW-2) Savitaben Naranbhai had discussed and

decided as to which weapon to be attributed to which accused.




                             Page 20 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                               JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




23.      Considering the evidence of this injured eye-witness along

with the evidence of the complainant Popatbhai Gobarbhai and

the eye-witness Savitaben Naranbhai, it clearly appears that

their evidence are contradictory and inconsistent to each other

as well as to the case of the prosecution.



24.      On conjoint reading of the evidence of all the aforesaid star

witnesses, it transpires that at the time of the alleged incident,

there was no light and it was a complete dark in the vicinity and

not possible for anybody to identify a person or the weapon. It

also appears that there was a scuffle, and in the said scuffle, the

complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai, his uncle Kalubhai

Manjibhai and his cousin Naranbhai Savjibhai had sustained

injuries,       and     during   the   treatment,   Naranbhai        Savjibhai

succumbed to the injuries. If the evidence of the star witnesses

is read in juxtaposition, it clearly established that all the

witnesses have improvised their version about having a torch.

Even, the Investigating Officer (PW-10) Nazabhai Chhanabhai

Chauhan, in his evidence at Exh.57, has elicited during cross-

examination that he had recorded the further statement of the

complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai, wherein, he has

nowhere mentioned that at the time of the alleged incident, he


                                   Page 21 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                          JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




was having a torch and the accused Bhura had also placed his

torch on the mound.



25.      Considering the aforesaid, there remains no doubt that the

complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai and the injured

witness (PW-8) Kalubhai Manjibhai have improvised their version

regarding presence of torch at the time of the alleged incident

with a view to establish that they saw the incident in the

torchlight. Furthermore, considering the admission made by the

injured witness - Kalubhai Manjibhai as well as considering the

evidence of the Investigating Officer - Nazabhai Chhanabhai

Chauhan, it clearly established that at the time of the alleged

incident, none of them were having a torch. This cast serious

doubt about the version of the prosecution.



26.      The prosecution has also examined the witness (PW-6)

Himmatbhai Somabhai at Exh.38, who is the panch-witness to

the panchnama of the scene of offence as well as the panchnama

of arrest and recovery of weapon. This witness has also not

supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

Similarly, the second panch-witness of the panchnama of arrest

and recovery of the weapon (PW-7) Pratapbhai Nankubhai, who


                               Page 22 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                        JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




is examined at Exh.53, has also not supported the case of the

prosecution and turned hostile.



27.      Thus, it appears that all the star witnesses, in their

respective evidence, have tried to support the case of the

prosecution, however, considering the facts revealed in their

cross-examination, the entire case of the prosecution appears to

be doubtful. Even, the trial court, after appreciating the

evidence, has arrived at the same conclusion. Admittedly, the

medical evidence corroborates the injuries sustained by the

deceased as well as the injured witnesses. However, considering

the inconsistencies and material contradictions in the evidence

of the star witnesses, it can certainly be said that, no doubt, the

incident has occurred, but not as per the version of the

prosecution.



28.      It is pertinent to note that as per the case of the

prosecution, at the time of the arrest of the accused in presence

of these panch-witnesses, the accused persons had produced

different weapons used in the commission of the offence.

Considering the biological as well serological reports of the FSL

at Exh.51, it clearly established that no blood was found from


                             Page 23 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                          JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




any of the weapons allegedly used in the incident and seized by

the police. Therefore, considering the same, it appears that the

evidence regarding recovery of the weapons allegedly used in the

incident seems to be doubtful since the panchas have not

supported the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, the FSL

report suggests that no blood was found on any of the weapons

seized by the police.



29.      Upon careful examination of the judgment of the trial court

at Exh.59, it is evident that even the trial court has observed the

inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the star

witnesses. The trial court, after careful appreciation of the

evidence, has arrived at the conclusion that the evidence of the

complainant (PW-1) Popatbhai Gobarbhai, the injured (PW-8)

Kalubhai Manjibhai and the eye-witness (PW-2) Savitaben

Naranbhai are mutually inconsistent and contradictory with

each other. Furthermore, they have improvised their version

regarding presence of the torch. The trial court has also arrived

at the conclusion that the recovery and the use of weapons

seems to be doubtful as no panchas have supported the recovery

and even the FSL evidence is not in corroboration with the case

of the prosecution.


                               Page 24 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




         CONCLUSION :


30.      Upon           reassessment    of    the      entire   evidence       of       the

prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has

failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned

APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary

view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is

vitiated by some manifest error or illegality or that the decision is

perverse or that the trial court has ignored material evidence

available on record.


31.      Before parting with the judgment, it would be apt to refer

to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa

vs. State Of Karnataka, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544, wherein

the Supreme Court has observed thus :-


         “26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a
         criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The two-
         views theory has been judicially recognized by the Courts
         and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence
         results into two equally plausible views. However, the
         controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For,
         the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of
         innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in
         the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the


                                       Page 25 of 26
      R/CR.A/563/2003                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026




         presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views
         are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the
         accused is the safest course of action….”



32.      On the overall appreciation of the evidence as well as

considering the impugned judgment and order, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial

court do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The findings

recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper, and in

recording the same, no illegality or infirmity has been committed

by the trial court. This Court is in complete agreement with the

findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal

recorded by the trial court. Hence, no interference is warranted.



33.      On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the

Appeal, therefore, fails, and the same is hereby dismissed.

Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial

court.


                                                                       (SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.)



                                                                                   (VIMAL K. VYAS, J.)
/MOINUDDIN

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PIYUSH RAMESHBHAI KANOJIYA(HC00172), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/02/2026 14:28:29



                                                 Page 26 of 26