THE STATE OF GUJARATversusJIVANBHAI KESHAVBHAI SOLANKI

     R/CR.A/6/2005                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 6 of 2005


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA                                  Sd/-

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

           Approved for Reporting                  Yes          No
                                                                 ✔
==========================================================
                            THE STATE OF GUJARAT
                                    Versus
                     JIVANBHAI KESHAVBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
H B SHETHNA(2436) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

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

                               Date : 22/01/2026

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

 (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)


1.     Here is the Appeal by the State against the judgment and order of
acquittal.


2.     Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, passed in Sessions Case
No.239 of 2000, dated 14.10.2004, acquitting the respondents from the
offence under Section 307 read with Section 114/34 of the IPC.


                                   Page 1 of 9
     R/CR.A/6/2005                            JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




3.     This Court has heard Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, learned advocates Mr. H.B. Shethna, for the
respective parties.


4.     Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, the
respondents-accused were tried and prosecuted for the charge of
attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 IPC. According to
prosecution case, the injured Raman Vaghela was assaulted by the
respondents-accused with the weapon sticks, as a result, he sustained a
fracture injury over his leg and motive was to teach a lesson to the
injured, so that in future, he would not maintain relations with the
daughter of A1. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Shantilal
Vaghela (PW.1) with Kamrej Police Station. The accused-respondents
were arrested. The injured was treated and examined by Dr. Chandresh
Tailor (PW.10) and after due investigation, the accused were
chargesheeted for the offence of attempt to murder. Before the trial
court, the prosecution had examined as many as 10 witnesses and
exhibited 16 documents.


5.     On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded further
statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code,
wherein, they claimed their innocence.


6.     The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating and examining the
oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the accused herein for



                                Page 2 of 9
     R/CR.A/6/2005                             JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 114/34 of
IPC, but, convicted the respondents-accused under Section 324,
causing voluntary injury and on the issue of sentence, after hearing the
parties, instead of sentencing the accused to imprisonment, they have
been released on probation with the condition to keep peace and good
behaviour for a period of 2 years.


7.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this acquittal
appeal has been preferred by the State.


8.     Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the appellant – State, assailing the judgment and order of
acquittal, has submitted that the findings of acquittal are contrary to
law and evidence on record and the findings recorded are palpably
erroneous and based on the irrelevant material. The version of the eye
witnesses are clear about the injuries caused by the respondents-
accused and the manner in which the injured was assaulted, the
ingredients proving the charge under Section 307 clearly attracted as
the bodily injuries being inflicted with such intention to cause death
and if the injured would die, then the accused would certainly held
guilty for the offence of murder. In such circumstances, it is prayed
that, the learned trial court committed an error while extending the
benefit of probation and judicial discretion on that count, has not been
properly exercised.


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



                                Page 3 of 9
      R/CR.A/6/2005                              JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




that while acquitting the respondent accused, the trial Court has
discarded and ignored the truthful, reliable and acceptable evidence
and as such, no cogent reasons being assigned while discarding such
evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the conclusion of acquittal
recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and
upon erroneous understanding of law. Thus, it is prayed that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the
respondents accused and the judgment and order of acquittal be set
aside and accused may be convicted and sentenced for the offence as
referred above.


10.     Mr. Shethna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
accused has submitted that the High Court in a case of Appeal against
the acquittal, can interfere only when there are compelling substantial
reasons for doing so and more particularly, the findings are without
reasons and unreasonable and contrary to the evidence. In the facts of
the present case, if the evidence led by the prosecution accepted as it is,
then also, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 307 are
not attracted. It is further submitted that, pending the appeal, the matter
was amicably settled and same has been brought to the notice of this
court by the injured in the form of affidavit and therefore, on merits as
well as in view of the compromise, the present acquittal appeal
deserves to be dismissed.


11.     In such circumstances, referred to above, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents accused, has submitted that the Trial



                                 Page 4 of 9
      R/CR.A/6/2005                             JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




Court while discarding the evidence of oral testimonies of the
witnesses have assigned cogent and sufficient reasons while acquitting
the accused and therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed is well
reasoned, legally sustainable and does not suffer any infirmity
warranting interference by this Court.


12.      Before proceeding to address the rival submissions, we would
like to place on record the scope of interference in an appeal against
the acquittal and when the same is justified. In exceptional cases,
where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under
appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the
judgment of acquittal. The Appellate Court should bare in mind the
presence of innocence of the accused and further that, the trial Court’s
acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a
routine manner, where the other view of possible should be avoided,
unless there are reasons for interference.


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


14.     We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary
evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial
Court. In the facts of the present case, the respondents-accused have
not challenged their conviction under Section 324 of the IPC and in
that view of the matter, we do not deem it fit to refer the oral evidence
of the witnesses. We have examined the medical evidence and the



                                 Page 5 of 9
    R/CR.A/6/2005                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




manner in which the injured was assaulted. In order to prove the charge
of attempt to murder, the prosecution is obliged to prove the essential
ingredients of the offence, which are:


           (i) that the death of a human being was attempted:

           (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in
           consequence of the act of the accused and

           (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death or
           that it was done with the intention of causing such
           bodily injury as:

           (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death or

           (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
           that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to
           him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability
           cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
           the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such
           death or injury. The first part makes any act committed with the
           intention or knowledge that it would amount to murder if the act
           caused death punishable with imprisonment up to ten years. The
           second part makes such an act punishable with imprisonment for
           life if hurt is caused thereby. Thus even if the act does not cause any
           injury it is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years. If it does
           cause an injury and therefore hurt, it is punishable with
           imprisonment for life.


      A bare reading of the provision would provide that to justify the
conviction under Section 307, it is necessary to prove that the act was
done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances
that, if he or she by that act cause death. In the case of Hari Singh Vs.
Sukhbir Singh (1988 (4) SCC 551), the Supreme Court held that
while examining whether a case of commission of offence under
Section 307 is made out, the Court is required to see whether the act,


                                    Page 6 of 9
      R/CR.A/6/2005                             JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge or
under circumstances mentioned in the section. It is also settled that, the
proof of grievous or life threatening hurt is not sine-qua-none. The
intention of the accused can be gathered from the actual injury, nature
of the weapon used, manner in which the incident took place, motive
for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of body where the injuries
inflicted. In addition to that, for the conviction under Section 307,
more important has been given to mens-rea.


15.     In AIR 1982 SC 2013, Kundan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- "We are of the view that
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and
particularly in view of the fact that P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 were in the
courtyard of their house when the appellant fired gun shots and he
could not, therefore, have intended to injure them, the conviction of the
appellant under Section 307, I.P.C. was not justified. We think that the
conviction of the appellant could be maintained only under Section 324
of the I.P.C. since P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 received simple injuries. We
accordingly allow the appeal and alter the conviction of the appellant
to one under Section 324 of the I.P.C. for causing simple injuries to
P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 and since the appellant has already suffered
imprisonment for about 16 months, we direct that the sentence imposed
on the appellant be reduced to that already undergone by him and that
he may be set at liberty forthwith.


16.     The Apex Court in AIR 1996 SC 3236, Merambhai Punjabhai



                                 Page 7 of 9
      R/CR.A/6/2005                            JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




Khachar and others vs. State of Gujarat, wherein in an attempt to
commit murder by fire-arm, victim has suffered a pallet injury, the
Apex Court held that Section 307 I.P.C. cannot be held to have been
satisfied and the conviction was altered to Section 324 of IPC.


17.     In Ramesh vs. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 664, wherein the
injury was found on the back of the injured. Accused was tried along
with two other was convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, while the 9
two others were acquitted. The Apex Court altered from section 307 of
IPC into Section 324 of I.P.C. and sentence was reduced to the period
already undergone with fne of Rs. 3000/-, which was to be paid to the
complainant as compensation.”


18.     The facts of this case are to be considered on the touchstone of
the law, which has been laid down by the Supreme Court. In the case
on hand, the injuries as referred is not life threatening and admittedly,
no any repeated blow being inflicted on the body of the injured by the
accused. The injured himself by way of compromise affidavit, admitted
about the nature of the injury. In such circumstances, in our opinion,
the ingredients of Section 307 in the facts of the present case, are not
satisfied. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution accepted as it is, the
case against the respondents-accused does not travel beyond Section
324 of the IPC.


19.     The next contention raised is about the benefit of probation



                                 Page 8 of 9
        R/CR.A/6/2005                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




 granted by the trial court. We have examined the statutory provisions
 on the aspect of probation and the relations of the parties. The matter
 has been amicably settled and therefore, the issue of probation does not
 require to be interfered with.


 20.      With the observations as aforesaid, the appeal is accordingly
 dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the R & P to the Trial
 Court. Bail bonds are cancelled, if any, and surety is discharged.

                                                                                             Sd/-
                                                                                  (ILESH J. VORA,J)




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


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: TAUSIFAHMED SAIYED(HC01401), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/01/2026 16:07:22




                                                 Page 9 of 9