Holding

The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in acquitting the accused as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed against the acquittal of twelve accused in a murder‑related case, alleging that the trial court had ignored substantial oral and documentary evidence. The incident involved the death of Siddharajsing after a midnight assault allegedly orchestrated by the accused over a land dispute. The prosecution presented eighteen witnesses, medical reports, and various panchnamas, while the defence argued inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The trial court found the witness testimony unreliable and acquitted the accused of offences under the IPC and the Bombay Police Act. On appeal, the High Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, the medical evidence, and the legal standards for conviction, concluding that the prosecution had not discharged the burden of proof. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

The trial court’s appreciation of oral and documentary evidence was correct.
Whether the prosecution proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether there was any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the acquittal order.

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Acts. 135
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378(1)(3)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 134
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120(B), s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 201, s. 302, s. 323, s. 325

Subjects

appeal against acquittalreasonable doubtevidence appraisalwitness credibilitydouble presumption of innocencecriminal procedureIPC offencesappellate review

Judgment

R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 978 of 1998

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHHATRASING JETUSING @ SADRUBHA JETHUJI THAKORE & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,2,3,4,8,9
MR HD CHUDASAMA(234) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
5,6,7
MR P B KHAMBHOLJA(5730) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,2,3,4,8,9
==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 17/07/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)

1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment and order dated 30.07.1998 passed by the learned

Page 1 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur (hereinafter be referred to as “the
trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.48 of 1997, whereby the trial Court
has acquitted the original accused (respondents herein) from the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 325,
120(B), 201 etc of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter be referred to
as “the IPC”] and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.05.1996, in
the midnight at Village: Andhariya, Taluka: Vadgam, step mother-in-
law namely Menba of the complainant Naniben had quarreled with her
husband Jorsing Ratansing on account of drinking liquor and she was
beaten her husband and step mother also demanded share in the
land, due to which the accused including Menba had beaten the
husband – Siddharajsing and hence, he sustained fatal injury and
succumbed to the injury and the complainant and his brother-in-law
also sustained injury. Hence, a complaint was lodged by the
complainant before Palanpur City Police Station for the aforesaid
offences. The police prepared panchnama of the scene of offence and
inquest panchnama etc and after preparing the arrest panchnama,
the accused came to be arrested. On completion of investigation,
charge sheet was submitted into the Court of learned J.M.F.C.

2.1 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court vide Exhibit 3 for the aforesaid offences against the accused.
On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having
committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge
and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.

3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses.

Page 2 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

P.W. No. Name of Witnesses Exhibit
1 Dr. Bhikhabhai Kohajibhai 18
2 Naniben Siddhrajsing 22
3 Mafatbhai Halabhai 25
4 Jaluba Jorsing 29
5 Bhikhabhai Rajabhai 31
6 Bhagwansing Jorsing Thakor 37
7 Dolji Motiji Barad 40
8 Gobarsing Agarsing 42
9 Mohanji Lalji 46
10 Pruthviraj Chhaganji Thakor 47
11 Bhikhaji Kaluji 48
12 Pravin Dharmabhai Shrimali 49
13 Laxman Parathibhai 50
14 Savaji Fataji Solanki 51
15 Bhikhabhai Rajabhai Nai 52
16 Dhegabhai Masharubhai 53
17 Dhanesinh Ajitsinh 54
18 Jayantibhai Dhudabhai Parmar 70

4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the
following documentary evidence.

Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit
1 Postmortem Note 19
2 Medical Certificate 20
3 Yadi sent to Medical Officer 21
4 Inquest Panchnama 23
5 Seizure Panchnama 24
6 Complaint 26

Page 3 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

7 Yadi sent to Police Sub Inspector 27
8 Copy of register entry 28
9 Panchnama of the scene of offence dated 41
30.05.1996
10 Panchnama dated 31.05.1996 43
11 Police report 55
12 Yadi sent to Police Sub Inspector 56
13 Yadi sent to Police Sub Inspector 57
14 Receipt 58
15 Panchnama dated 31.05.1996 59
16 Panchnama dated 31.05.1996 60
17 Panchnama dated 01.06.1996 62
18 Panchnama dated 01.06.1996 63
19 Panchnama dated 04.06.1996 64
20 Panchnama dated 03.06.1996 66
21 Letter (F.S.L.) 67
22 Forwarding Note 68
23 F.S.L. Report 69

5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that they are innocent.

6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.

Page 4 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

8. Heard Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.H. D. Chudasama, learned counsel
and Mr.P. B. Khambholja, learned counsel for the resective
respondents – accused at length.

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which are
narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the
prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary
evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. She, while referring to the entire oral as well as
documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and
order and submitted that the trial Court has not taken into
consideration the evidence connecting the accused to the alleged
offence in its proper perspective and even the prosecution has been
able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. While
referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the material collected
against the accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
submitted that the prosecution has established the case against the
accused by examining the witnesses, who have supported the case of
the prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and
disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses. She has submitted that
the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution,
however, the trial Court has not appreciated the same and passed the
judgment and order of acquittal which is illegal and unjust. She has
submitted that it is settled legal position that the evidence of a single
witness is sufficient for conviction if the same is reliable and
trustworthy and in the present case, though the evidence of all the
witnesses are reliable and trustworthy, without any cogent reason,

Page 5 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

the trial Court has disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the
witnesses.

9.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that
the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on
record, based on erroneous appreciation of material evidence, and
has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in law, thereby
calling for interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. She has also submitted that the learned Trial Court has
materially erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by the trial
Court were therefore perverse, illegal, and contrary to the evidence
on record.

9.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
accused has formed unlawful assembly with an intention to commit
the murder of deceased Siddhrajsing by their respective weapons like
Swords, Dharia, Sticks, Knife and Dhoka etc. and they have assaulted
upon the complainant – Naniba and thereby Bhavansing and Jaluben
sustained injury and have tried to destroy the evidence. She has
submitted that the accused – Jaswantsing inflicted blow of Stick,
accused – Chhatrasing inflicted bow of Dharia, accused Odharsing
inflicted blow of Knife, accused – Menba inflicted blow of sword,
accused Jorsing inflicted blow of Dharia and other accused inflicted
with their respective weapons. She has submitted that the trial Court
has not properly appreciated the evidence of Naniben, Bharatsing
Ishwarsing, Bhagwansing and Jaluba and thereby committed an error
in acquitting the accused for the alleged offence. She has submitted
that the accused ought to have convicted on the basis of the evidence

Page 6 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

of Dr. Bhikhabhai who examined at Exhibit 18 and this doctor
performed the postmortem of deceased and issued death certificate
of the deceased and also stated that the injuries as stated in the
postmortem note were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause
the death of the deceased. She has also submitted that the trial Court
has not appreciated the evidence of the complainant – Naniba, who
stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, a mob of 10 – 12
persons rushed including the accused Chhatrasing inflicted blow of
Dharia on the head of deceased and other persons inflicted blows of
sticks. She has submitted that the respondents have committed a
breach of Notification issued under the Bombay Police Act by the
District Magistrate and thereby committed an offence under Section
135 of the Bombay Police Act and it is also a settled legal position that
the evidence of the injured witnesses should be believed in its true
and proper spirit.

9.3 According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court
ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed
necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present appeal and
to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

10. Per contra, both learned counsel for the respondents – accused
have supported the impugned judgment and order and has submitted
that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and fact in
acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. They
have submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the
trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as the complainant has
failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. They have
also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to connect the

Page 7 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

accused with the alleged crime in question. They have submitted that
the evidence led by the prosecution suffers from material
contradictions, omissions, and inconsistencies, which create serious
doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and the prosecution
has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences
and has not produced reliable, trustworthy, and corroborative
evidence connecting the respondent with the commission of the
alleged offence. They have submitted that it is a settled principle of
criminal jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence in favour of
an accused is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. It is
submitted that unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are
shown to be perverse, illegal, or contrary to the evidence on record,
the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with an order of
acquittal. It is submitted that the appellant has failed to point out any
infirmity, illegality, perversity, or misreading of evidence in the
impugned judgment and order and the findings recorded by the
learned trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of the
evidence and settled legal principles. Learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves
to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
deserves to be confirmed.

10.1 In support of his submissions, Mr.Chudasama, learned counsel
for the respondents has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in (1996) 9 SCC 225 and P. Somaraju Vs. State
of Andra Pradesh reported in (2026) 1 SCC (Cri.) 65.

11. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as

Page 8 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

under:-

(1) whether the trial Court has rightly justified in passing the
judgment and order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral as well
as documentary evidence led by the prosecution in recording
the reasons.
(3) whether there are any illegality, irregularity and perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

12. Considering the above referred averments and issues arising in
the present appeal, let first examine the facts of the case. That on
28.05.1996 at bout 1.30 a.m i.e. midnight of 28 th May and early hours
of 29th May, the complainant Nimaben along with her husband namely
Sidhdhrajsing, her sister-in-law, her brother-in-law namely
Bhagwansing Jorsing Thakor were sleeping under the beneath a nim
tree at their agricultural field at that time accused persons including
the father, step mother of the deceased and other relatives of the
step mother have assaulted the husband of the complainant and in
the result, Sidhdhrajsing sustained the injury and succumbed to the
injury. The complainant along with her brother-in-law sustained
injuries at the hands of the accused. It appears from the record that
the prosecution has examined eighteen witnesses including the
medical officer and the police personnel and also led the
documentary evidence. It reveals from the record that the twelve
accused have inflicted the blows by their respective weapons to the
deceased. Now on perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 wife of the
deceased, it appears that she alleged that on account of an
agriculture field of her father-in-law, accused No.3 being step mother
of the deceased was demanding share from the land of P.W.4 i.e. real

Page 9 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

father of the deceased and in the result, the family members of
accused No.3 have hatched conspiracy and formed an unlawful
assembly have reached at the resident of the deceased in the
midnight who happened to be the son of accused No.4. This witness
has stated that she along with her husband and sister-in-law sleeping
on different cots under the beneath a nim tree, when she woke up
due to screaming and shouting, she found that her husband was lying
in injured condition and blood was oozing from the back of his head.
This witness has further stated that when she screamed and shouted
for help, her sister-in-law was running at the place and accused have
chased two witnesses. From the evidence of P.W.2, it appears that in
her chief examination, this witness had given detail about the incident
in question, whereas, in her cross-examination, she deposed
completely contrary version and not supported her own case.

13. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that she had taken
her husband to the Civil Hospital at around one or two o'clock. When
she brought her husband to the Palanpur Civil Hospital, hers husband
had already died. The treatment for the injuries she had sustained
was done by the doctor during the night. It must have taken about
five to ten minutes to treat her, and she was in the hospital itself until
she lodged the complaint. In the morning, many people from their
village had come, and at night as well, many people had come. It is
true that, Bhagvansing, her brother-in-law (Devar), was also with her.
She has stated that five children were born to Menba from her father-
in-law, out of which one is a son and four are daughters. It is true that,
second marriage of her father-in-law Jorsing took place at Antroli
village, and from that marriage as well, a daughter was born to her
father-in-law, who is alive. That daughter as well as her mother both
reside in Antroli village. This witness has two agricultural fields; there

Page 10 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

is no well. She cultivated the land. It is not true that, quarreled used
to take place between Menba and me regarding that land. It is not
true that, Menba used to quarrel with me stating that, she wanted a
share in the land. It is not true that, she had stated in her statement
before the police on 30/05/1996 that, "Menba quarreled with them
saying give the share of the land." This land belongs to her father-in-
law Jorsing's ancestors. Menba cultivated this land. There are two
fields, out of which they cultivated one field and Menba cultivated the
other field. Menba cultivated the field that was on the way towards
the (Illegible) side from the village, and she had never stopped
Menbaa from cultivating that field. It is true that, no quarrel has ever
taken place between Menba and herself regarding the land. Her
father-in-law Jorsing has not had any quarrel with them regarding the
land. It has never happened that, Jorsing quarreled demanding a
share of the land. She has been residing in Andhariya village for eight
years. She stated that, during that period of eight years, no dispute
has taken place between us and Jorsing and Menba regarding the
land. It is true that, while going from Palanpur to Ambaji, ther village
came towards the Antroli village. Andhariya village is two-three km
away from the road. There was an approach road leading to their
village from the road going to Ambaji. Their houses were situated in
the village, which were on one side. While entering the village, the
first house was them. Their house has been constructed on
wasteland; it has not been constructed in an agricultural field. The
houses of other brothers of Jorsing were situated in the village. The
houses of Rajusing Magansing and Babusing Magansing were not on
wasteland. Their houses were situated near the well and their well
was situated opposite our house on the eastern side. The village lies
to the west of their house. After their house, there is a road, and
thereafter the houses of the village begin. The houses situated at the

Page 11 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

beginning of the village belong to the people of her caste i.e. Darbar.
There were approximately 200 houses of Darbar. In which there were
ten houses of her family and the rest were from their Mohalla. There
were four houses of their Mohalla and rest of the houses were of other
Darbar families. There was no other road other than the road to reach
Ambaji road from Andhariya. She has no knowledge that whether the
road leading to Andhariya village from Ambaji road ends in Andhariya
village or not. Saku village situated to the North of their village. After
leaving the road from her house, the house of her father in law
namely Jorsing situated. No quarrel used to occur between her
mother-in-law and father-in-law. She has never heard of any quarrel
between her mother-in-law and father-in-law. Her father-in-law never
told her that he had a quarrel with his wife. Menba used to tell her
that “her husband beaten her.” Now She stated that, her mother-in-
law never came to her to tell about quarrel. She did not know that,
whether two years ago, before this incident occurred, Siddharajsing
inflicted a cut wound on the hand of Menba by hitting her and
regarding which a complaint was lodged by Menbaa against her
husband in Vadgaam Police Station or not? It is not true that her
husband inflicted a blow of axe on the head of Jorsing regarding which
Jorsing filed a case in Vadgaam Police Station against my husband.
She did not know that both the cases were pending in the Court at
Palanpur and she also did not know that her husband used to attend
the hearing dates in this cases. It is not true that two cases regarding
liquor has been filed against her husband. It is not true that, the cases
were pending in the Court at Palanpur. It is not true that, a case
against her husband is filed for spilling all the milk belonging to a
person of their village from Raval community while taking it to the
Dairy. It has occurred that Jetusing inflicted a blow to the chest of my
husband with a stick and Jetusing is the father of accused Chhatrasing

Page 12 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

and Odharsing. Jetusing inflicted a blow of stick on the leg of her
brother-in-law, Bhagvansing and blows of sticks were inflicted
repeatedly, Odharsing inflicted a blow of stick on her. Odharsing had
two weapons - knife and stick and Odharsing did not inflict any blow
of knife on her. Jetusing was only having a stick with him and other
than that he did not hit anything. She has also stated in the complaint
that, Jetusing inflicted a blow of stick on her husband. They were
hitting her husband on all over his body. Jetusing did not hit her sister
in law. This witness has stated that Karansing and Gambhirsing were
empty handed and both of them had called the other accused, who
were her relatives. She has not seen the house of Karansing and she
has already seen Karansing and the age of Karansing was
approximately 30 to 35 years. She has seen Karansing about two to
three years ago while passing by. She did not know the name of the
father of Karansing. Karansing and Gambhirsing were provoking
everyone in this incident. She did not see if they were having scythe
with them or not and she has not stated in the complaint that
Gambhirsing and Karansing were having scythe with them but she
stated their names in the complaint. After stating the complaint she
came to know that she has falsely dictated the names of Karansing,
Jetusing and Gambhirsing. It is true that, Police informed her that
there was no person named Karansing, when She stated the name of
Karansing in her complaint and that’s why she informed Police that
she had falsely dictated the name of Karansing.

14. It appears that the said fact has not been supported by the
evidence of P.W.4. Except for these two witnesses, none of the
independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It
also appears from the record that the panchas have not supported the
case of the prosecution and declared hostile and, therefore, the

Page 13 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

panchnama of the recovery and panchnama of the scene of
occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. Surprisingly,
P.W.6 who happened to be the brother of the deceased and also slept
in the veranda of the house, was shown to be an injured witness.

15. On perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.2, it reveals that
this witness has specifically stated that she has given only four names
of the accused and remaining names were given by the villagers and
all the names of the assailants given by the P.W.2 without actually
knowing their names. One of the person shown to be the accused had
died before about ten years, however, she had referred the name of
that deceased person as an assailant and then she realized that the
said person died prior to the date of incident, she had named that
accused because of the villagers. Considering the material on record
and the the injury sustained on the body of the deceased, it appears
that the only head injury was caused by some heavy weapon which
was proved to be fatal in nature, otherwise, no correspondence injury
was found on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was
mentioned by the doctor was proved to be fatal. But if the twelve
accused were simultaneously inflicting the blows by sticks, sword,
dharia, and other iron pipes then there was every possibility that
there were multiple injury found on the body of the deceased but the
same were not found. Whereas, in her cross-examination, P.W.2 has
completely washed out the story of the prosecution more particularly
in paras – 15, 16, 17 and 18, which does not inspire any confidence.
Considering the fact that at the time of drawing the panchnama of the
scene of offence, only one cot was found in the house and on the said
cot, one quilt was sprayed over with the blood then the rest of the two
cots as per the case of the complainant the blood was not found at
the place. From the records, it emerges that whether there was any

Page 14 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

electricity available at the residence because the incident occurred in
the midnight and looking to the panchnama of the place of offence,
there was no mention of electricity and none of the witnesses had
referred about the electricity then there were possibility that the
complainant could not identify all twelve accused except accused
No.3 and 4 since they were being father-in-law and mother-in-law of
the complainant. So far as the dispute with regard to the land is
concerned, there is no material come forth on record and the dispute
between the father and son as the father-in-law of the complainant
resided next to the house of the deceased and near the vicinity 6 – 7
people resided in their house constructed in their respective
agriculture field. However, Neither the statements the nearby
witnesses have been recorded nor examined as witnesses in the
present case. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it
appears that the trial Court has observed the relevant findings from
para 5 to para 16 and discussed at length and appreciated the
evidence of those witnesses. It also appears that the trial Court has
rightly observed that the evidence led by the prosecution does not at
all inspired any confidence and except the P.W.2, her sister-in-law,
none of the witnesses have thrown light on the incident in question.
Considering the evidence of P.W.6, it appears that when hewoke up,
he saw that his brother was lying in bleeding condition and he feared
that he would also be caused injury or killed by the accused and,
therefore, he was running away from the place and at that time,
accused ran and tried to chase the witnesses. The material
contradictions and omissions were proved through the evidence of
P.W.6. On examining the evidence of P.W.6, it emerges that he
admitted that the step mother is real aunt of the deceased and it was
the second marriage of his father with her matrimonial aunt since his
real mother died and before the incident, the deceased had already

Page 15 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

parted with the share and individual land to his step mother (masi). If
this Court considers the fact that when P.W.6 woke up, the incident of
causing injury to the deceased was already over and, therefore, he
has not seen the actual incident whereby the injury caused to the
deceased by whom and with which weapon and, therefore, the
depositions of the said three witnesses including P.W.3, P.W.4 and
P.W.6 is completely contrary and it does not inspire any confidence as
they are the interested witnesses and, therefore, their depositions
cannot be brushed aside on account of that they are interested or
family members of the deceased. Their evidence is required to be
examined and scrutinized as it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court that the quantity of the witnesses is not material or quality of
the witnesses is required to be considered as it was held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that the realization on the testimony of the
witnesses is reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jagdish Vs. State Of Haryana reported in (2019) 7 SCC 711. In
the case of Jagdish (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and
observed in para 8 as under:-

“8. For appreciating the rival submissions, it will be
apposite to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, which read thus:

“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—

(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe,--

(a) ………………………………………………

(b) ………………………………………………

xxx xxx xxx

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled

Page 16 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Tribe in any place within public view;

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view;”

16. In the case where the Court has convicted the accused person,
while deciding the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered
the fact the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and on an
appreciation of evidence the prosecution story was found highly
improbable and inconsistent of ordinary course of human nature. It is
pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Inderjeet Singh Vs. State (Nct Of Delhi) reported in AIR
2020 SC 4894. The relevant headnote of this decision reads as
under:-

“(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 34, 302 - Arms Act, 1959 -
S. 27 - Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 3 - murder - conviction and
sentence - sustainability - testimony of sole eye witness,
who is a close relation of deceased - case primarily hinges
on testimony of sole eye witness, PW-1, brother of
deceased - assailants were only armed with hockey sticks
and a knife and not with any fire arms - testimony of PW-1
and also his conduct at time of incident - unnatural conduct
of PW-1 and PW-11 two brothers of deceased which have
noticed from record is that though they claim to be present
at time of occurrence but no attempt was made by them to
save their brother from assault, merely on threat extended
by assailants armed with hockey sticks and a knife - this
unnatural conduct totally against natural human behaviour
casts a serious doubt of shadow on presence of eye witness
on spot at time of occurrence - moreover facts stated by
PW-1 in this regard has not been corroborated by other
brother PW-11 - other unnatural conduct of two brothers
PW-1 and PW-11 just after incident again makes their
presence on spot extremely doubtful - there was a medical
clinic of just nearby place of incident and first endeavour of
two brothers would have been to take injured brother to
clinic for immediate medical aid or try and get some
medical aid from clinic but no efforts made to get medical
aid - it is highly unnatural that two real brothers made no
efforts to save life of third brother who was severely injured

Page 17 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

if they were present at place of incident - since there are
serious doubtful aspects in conduct of PW-1 and his conduct
does not appear to be natural it would not be safe to accept
his evidence without corroboration more particularly when
two other eye witnesses, one being a real brother of
deceased has turned hostile - there are inherent
improbabilities in prosecution story - conduct of eye witness
is inconsistent with ordinary course of human nature hence,
it would not be safe to convict appellants upon
uncorroborated testimony of sole eye witness - since,
prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of accused
beyond doubt appellants therefore must be given benefit of
doubt - impugned orders of Courts below set aside -
appellants are directed to be released forthwith unless
required in any other case - appeals allowed. (Para
19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,32,35)

(b) Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 134 - evidence - testimony of sole
eye witness - evidentiary value - as a general rule, Court can
and may act on testimony of single eye witness provided he
is wholly reliable - there is no legal impediment in convicting
a person on sole testimony of a single witness - that is logic
of S. 134 of Evidence Act - but if there are doubts about
testimony, Courts will insist on corroboration - it is not
number, quantity but quality that is material - time honoured
principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted
- on this principle stands edifice of S. 134 - test is whether
evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy or otherwise. (Para 16)”

17. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has
not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned
judgment and order and there is no any illegality and infirmity found
in the judgment and order.

18. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is

Page 18 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

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 their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.

19. Further, 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. Further, 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
judgment 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 record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which they are charged.

20. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka

Page 19 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in
[2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated
the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in
paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble
Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, we are in complete
agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

21. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-

“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa
and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of
the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a
judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:

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

(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

Page 20 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

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 “flourishes of
language” to emphasize 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.

21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential
for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for
discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able
to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It
was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it
would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a
contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is
absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject
their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of
the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this
light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing
with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered
judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the
benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”

22. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to

Page 21 of 22
R/CR.A/978/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.

23. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.

24. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is
hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
V.R. PANCHAL

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/07/2026 17:39:15

Page 22 of 22