Holding

The appellate court affirmed the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The State appealed the acquittal of five accused in a murder case under Sections 302, 114, 323 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act, alleging that the trial court erred in finding the evidence insufficient. The prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of three close relatives, forensic recovery of a weapon and blood‑stained material, and post‑mortem evidence of fatal stab wounds. The High Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, noted contradictions in their accounts, the lack of independent corroboration, procedural irregularities, and the failure to link the accused conclusively to the murder. Applying the double presumption in favour of the accused and the principle that an appellate court may not overturn an acquittal unless the only possible conclusion is guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that the prosecution’s case was weak. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal confirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to set aside the trial court's acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.
Whether the circumstantial and eyewitness evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
How the double presumption in favour of the accused operates in an appeal against acquittal.
Whether procedural lapses and inconsistencies in witness testimony affect the validity of a conviction.

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Act, 1951s. 135
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 143, s. 147, s. 148, s. 302, s. 313, s. 323, s. 34

Subjects

murderacquittalappeal against acquittalcircumstantial evidenceeyewitness reliabilitypresumption of innocencedouble presumptionSection 378 CrPCIndian Penal CodeBombay Police Act

Judgment

R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 581 of 2002

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

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

=========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DAMABHAI JIBHAI GOHIL & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance:
MS. DIVYANGNA ZALA for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
MR RUSHABH R SHAH(5314) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3,4,5
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D.
NANAVATI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 07/02/2026

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

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatis7ed with the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Godhra in the Sessions Case no. 218 of 2001 for the o?ences
punishable under Sections 302, 114, 323 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – State has
preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

Page 1 of 11
R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

2. The brief facts leading to the 7ling of the present appeal are
as under:

2.1. As per the prosecution case, the complainant
Hasmukhbhai Narvatbhai is the real brother of the deceased Dilip
Narvatbhai. The deceased, along with his brother Pravinbhai and
mother Shantaben, resided jointly in Chhagan ni Muvadi village,
Taluka Kalol, District Panchmahal. There existed a long-standing
and deep-rooted enmity between the complainant's family and the
family of accused Kantibhai Jibhai Gohil, stemming from an alleged
illicit relationship between the deceased Dilip and the daughter of
accused Kantibhai Jibhai who had been married about four years
prior in Chidapuri village but was not residing with her in-laws,
having returned to her parental home approximately 5–6 months
before the incident. This alleged relationship had led to repeated
verbal altercations, quarrels, and threats between the two families
over a considerable period, creating a motive for the accused to
eliminate the deceased.

2.2. According to the prosecution, on 20-04-2001, during
the evening hours, the deceased Dilip, his brother Pravin, and
mother Shantaben were proceeding from their agricultural 7eld
hut towards their old ancestral house in the village after attending
to routine farm work. While en route, the complainant
Hasmukhbhai who was also present in the vicinity and other family
members suddenly heard loud cries and screams emanating from
the nearby open 7eld area, shouting that "Dilip Narvatbhai is being
beaten” ("Dilip Narvatbhai ne maro mari nakhyo"). Alarmed by
these cries, the complainant, along with Shantaben, Pravinbhai,
and cousin Vinubhai, immediately rushed to the spot in the 7eld.
Upon reaching the scene, the eye-witnesses allegedly witnessed the

Page 2 of 11
R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

7ve accused persons Damabhai Jibhai Gohil, Kantibhai Jibhai Gohil,
Somabhai Kantabhai Gohil, Dilip Damabhai Gohil, and Jaydip
Damabhai Gohil actively assaulting the deceased.

2.3. It is the prosecution's speci7c case that accused
Kantibhai Jibhai and Somabhai Kantabhai caught hold of and
restrained the deceased by his arms, preventing him from escaping
or defending himself, while accused Damabhai Jibhai inMicted
repeated blows with a stabbing weapon on vital parts of the body,
including the head, right and left shoulders, chest region, and other
areas, causing profuse bleeding and serious injuries. The other
accused persons, namely Dilip Damabhai and Jaydip Damabhai,
allegedly participated by inMicting 7st blows and restraining the
deceased, thereby sharing common intention to cause death. As a
result of the brutal assault, the deceased sustained multiple stab
wounds, fractures and internal injuries leading to neuro-
hemorrhage. The injured deceased was immediately lifted and
carried by the family members to the nearby Vejalpur Government
Hospital for emergency medical treatment. However, upon
examination by the doctor, he was declared brought dead around
midnight approximately 12:00 a.m. on 21-04-2001. At the hospital,
visible signs of assault such as bleeding from mouth, nose, and
ears, bruises, abrasions, and stab and incised wounds were noted
in the emergency case paper.

2.4. Thereafter, the complainant proceeded to Vejalpur
Outpost and then to Kalol Police Station to lodge the complaint.
The FIR came to be registered at Kalol Police Station on 21-04-
2001 at about 6:00 a.m. as C.R. No. 86 of 2001. At the scene of
o?ence near the 7eld, blood stains, blood-soaked soil, the alleged
weapon (gupti seized from accused Damabhai), blood-stained

Page 3 of 11
R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

clothes of the deceased, and other incriminating articles were
recovered during the spot panchnama and inquest proceedings.

2.5. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances
collectively including the pre-existing enmity and motive arising
from the alleged illicit relationship, the sudden and concerted
assault by the 7ve accused persons armed with deadly weapons,
the speci7c overt acts attributed to each accused restraining by
some and inMicting fatal sharp weapon blows by Damabhai, the
nature and situs of injuries as per post-mortem report multiple stab
and incised wounds on head, chest, shoulders leading to fatal
neuro-hemorrhage and shock, the prompt lodging of FIR by the
complainant – eye witness, recovery of blood-stained muddamal
articles including the weapon (gupti) from one of the accused.

2.6. Accordingly, after due investigation including scene of
o?ence panchnama, inquest panchnama, post-mortem examination
conducted on 21-04-2001 revealing fatal stab wounds consistent
with sharp weapon), seizure of muddamal weapon, blood-stained
clothes, soil, etc., FSL analysis, arrest of accused persons, and
recording of statements the Kalol Police 7led the charge-sheet
against the 7ve accused persons under Sections 143, 147, 148,
302, 114, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kalol. Finding the o?ences
exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed
to the Court of Session, Panchmahal at Godhra, where it was
registered as Sessions Case No. 218 of 2001. Charges were
accordingly framed, read over, and explained to the accused, who
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Page 4 of 11
R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

3. On conclusion of evidence, the Sessions Court put various
incriminating circumstances to the respondent-accused persons
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 eye-witnesses
family members who allegedly saw the assault identi7es the
accused and the medical evidence post-mortem showing fatal stab
wounds to head and chest fully corroborates the ocular account. He
therefore prays for allowing the appeal.

6. The incident is said to have occurred on the evening of 20-04-
2001 around evening to night time and in the open 7eld near the
"khodiyavala" agricultural hut in Chhagan ni Muvadi village, Taluka
Kalol, District Panchmahal. No independent eyewitness has been
examined who claims to have seen the actual assault on the
deceased Dilip Narvatbhai. The prosecution relies primarily on the
ocular testimony of three material witnesses, namely the
complainant Hasmukhbhai Narvatbhai brother of the deceased,
Pravinbhai another brother, and Vinubhai cousin, all of whom are
close relatives and interested parties. Additionally, the case hinges
on circumstantial evidence, including the alleged recovery of the
weapon (gupti) at the instance of accused No. 1 Damabhai Jibhai
Gohil, blood-stained soil and clothes from the scene, and the post-
mortem report establishing homicidal death due to stab wounds
and neuro-hemorrhage. However, no direct evidence conclusively

Page 5 of 11
R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

linking all 7ve accused persons to the act of murder has been
produced, especially in light of the contradictions in the witnesses
accounts regarding the sequence of events, the exact roles of each
accused, and the nature of the weapon used.

7. The material witnesses examined for the ocular account of
the incident have turned out to be unreliable due to vast
contradictions in their testimonies. Importantly, all three witnesses
Hasmukhbhai, Pravinbhai, and Vinubhai are close relatives of the
deceased, and no independent witnesses from the village, despite
the proximity of houses 10-12 houses nearby as per evidence, have
been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the assault. The
complainant Hasmukhbhai's FIR and deposition claim that accused
No. 1 Damabhai inMicted stab wounds with a "chappu" while
accused Nos. 2 Kantibhai Jibhai Gohil and 4 Somabhai Kantabhai
Gohil caught hold of the deceased, and accused Nos. 3 Jaydipbhai
Damabhai Gohil and 5 Dilipbhai Damabhai Gohil gave 7st blows
and assisted with sticks "dandapatu". However, in cross-
examination, inconsistencies emerged that some witnesses stated
the deceased was already lying unconscious upon their arrival with
no accused present, while others claimed to have seen the ongoing
assault; further, the weapon is described variably as "chappu" in
the FIR but recovered as "gupti" during investigation, with no
explanation for this discrepancy. The panch witnesses for the scene
of o?ence panchnama, recovery of blood-soaked soil, and the
muddamal weapon gave inconsistent versions, with some
supporting the recovery but others contradicting on material facts
such as police inMuence and the exact disclosure by the accused.

8. A signi7cant weakness in the prosecution case is the
complete failure to examine independent witnesses and the

Page 6 of 11
R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

presence of procedural lapses in handling the body and FIR. No
last seen together evidence has been established showing the
deceased being waylaid or confronted by the accused prior to the
alleged assault. The transportation of the deceased's body from the
scene to Vejalpur Hospital, then purportedly to Kalol, revealed
contradictions. Witnesses variably claimed the body was taken
directly to Vejalpur where death was declared, while records show
inquest and post-mortem at Kalol Community Health Centre, with
no police memo or form accompanying the body as per standard
procedure. The FIR timing is suspicious allegedly lodged around
midnight but registered at 6:00 a.m. the next day with the original
FIR not produced in court, only a copy relied upon. Moreover, the
blood samples collected from the scene, clothes, and weapon were
sent to the FSL, but the report, while con7rming blood presence,
did not conclusively prove it matched the deceased's blood group
or was human blood in all instances. The panchnama of the
accused's houses and recoveries has been rendered doubtful due to
contradictions between panch witnesses, such as the visibility of
name boards, locked premises, and over-enthusiastic support from
some panchas that smacked of tutoring.

9. Thus, the only circumstances sought to be proved are the
alleged ocular account by relatives, recovery of the gupti shown by
accused No. 1, and the existence of blood stains at the scene.
However, these remain unconnected to the deceased by way of
consistent testimonies or forensic evidence, with the weapon
contradiction chappu or gupti further breaking the chain. The chain
of circumstantial evidence, even if supplemented by the interested
witnesses accounts, is broken at several vital links absence of
independent corroboration, unreliable and contradictory relative
witnesses, no proof of the deceased's blood matching the stains, no

Page 7 of 11
R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

last seen evidence, no direct or consistent ocular account free from
material contradictions, and failure to establish conscious
possession or exclusive recovery implicating all accused in the
murder itself. In such circumstances, the Sessions Court rightly
held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt. The medical evidence establishes homicidal
death due to stab wounds on vital parts, but the identity of the
perpetrators, their speci7c roles, and the motive's direct linkage to
the incident have not been established unequivocally.

10. It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal there is a
double presumption in favour of the accused. Unless the 7ndings of
the Sessions Court are shown to be perverse, the appellate Court
will not interfere merely because another view is possible. The view
taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances or
reliable direct evidence pointing solely to the guilt of the accused is
not only a possible view but the only reasonable view on the
evidence on record.

11. It may be noted that during the pendency of this appeal,
accused Nos. 1 Damabhai Jibhai Gohil, 2 Kantibhai Jibhai Gohil,
and 3 Jaydipbhai Damabhai Gohil have expired, and thus the appeal
abates qua them. As regards the surviving accused Nos. 4
Somabhai Kantabhai Gohil and 5 Dilipbhai Damabhai Gohil, the
evidence against them limited to allegations of holding the
deceased and giving 7st blows is even weaker, resting solely on the
contradicted testimonies of relatives without independent support.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal does
not warrant any interference, and the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.

Page 8 of 11
R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

12. 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 7eld 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 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

Page 9 of 11
R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

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.”

13. 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: -
“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.”

14. In the light of the above discussion and the settled legal
position, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
respondent-accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The

Page 10 of 11
R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 16/02/2002
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra in
Sessions Case No.218/2001 does not call for any interference.

15. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The judgment and order of acquittal is con7rmed. Records and
Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,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 10/02/2026 15:22:18

Page 11 of 11