Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Abdul Gafar Abdul Karim Pattani on 2 August, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/847/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 847 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ABDUL GAFAR ABDUL KARIM PATTANI & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MAITHALI MEHTA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HASHIM QURESHI(1097) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 02/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal, filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.11.2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Third Fast Track Court, Veraval, in Sessions Case No.106 of 1999, whereby the accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:27 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/847/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined
2. The prosecution case originates from a complaint lodged by Vijaysinh Surajsinh Jhala (PW-5), who alleged that the accused had intimated him to warn the deceased, stating their intention to murder the deceased. Subsequently, i.e. on 04.03.1992, the deceased was found dead with a head injury. Based on these facts, an FIR was registered at Veraval Police Station on 04.03.1992.
3. The entire case of the prosecution hinges only on the evidence of PW-5. At the outset, we have examined the deposition of the complainant, Vijaysinh Surajsinh Jhala (PW-5), recorded at Exh.43. His testimony does not support the case of the prosecution. Notably, he denied the existence of any prior enmity between the accused and the deceased. In his cross- examination, he admitted that there was no altercation between the deceased and the accused and further clarified that the discussion, which took place in the previous night, was not considered serious by him. It is pertinent to note that the accused have been implicated solely on the basis of a statement allegedly made to the complainant on the night before the incident, wherein it was purportedly indicated that the accused would murder the deceased. However, the complainant is not an eyewitness to the incident. His evidence further indicates that the alleged conversation took place on 01.03.1992, and even thereafter, the accused and the deceased continued to attend their duties regularly. He has also categorically admitted that there was no direct altercation or conflict between the deceased and the accused. In light of these admissions, the prosecution's case is significantly weakened, as the complainant himself does not establish any Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/847/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined direct motive or hostile intent on the part of the accused. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence of the complainant alone, it would be unsafe to convict the accused for the serious offence of murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC and punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial Court has rightly scrutinized the evidence of the complainant as well as the other prosecution witnesses, and upon a comprehensive evaluation, has rightly acquitted the accused of the offences, as alleged.
4. The case is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence, which the prosecution has miserably failed to prove.
5. The motive itself is not proved from the evidence on record, hence, we are not inclined to reverse the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
6. 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 Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, (2006) 6 SCC, 39, the Supreme Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In paragraph No.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 judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the wellsettled principles of law that where two view are Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/847/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below."
7. Further, while considering the scope of power of the Appellate Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, wherein the Supreme Court has summarized the principles, which reads as under :-
"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 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 curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court."
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:27 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/847/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined
8. Thus, it is a settled principles that while exercising the appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Similar principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in the case of Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs vs. State of MP, 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled.
9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment 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, AIR 1981 SC 1417, wherein, it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. 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."
10. Thus, in case the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. We have gone through the judgment 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 Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/847/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined learned APP for the appellant-State. The trial Court, while considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, has clearly observed that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court. Thus, from the evidence itself, it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Accordingly, we are not inclined to disturb the acquittal after appreciation of the evidence. Further, we do not find any infirmity, perversity of illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court recording the acquittal of the accused. The appeal fails. The same is dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, shall be returned to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J) MAHESH/16 Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:27 IST 2025