State Of Gujarat vs Ramabhai Jogdabhai Pargi

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Ramabhai Jogdabhai Pargi on 1 December, 2025

Author: Ilesh J. Vora

Bench: Ilesh J. Vora

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.A/1214/2003                               JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025

                                                                                                           undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1214 of 2003

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                      and
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
                       ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                          Versus
                                              RAMABHAI JOGDABHAI PARGI & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
                               and
                               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
                                          Date : 01/12/2025

                                            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, Godhra, passed in Sessions Case No.166 of 2002, dated 24.01.2003, acquitting the respondent from the offence under Sections 302, 326, 323 read with Section 34 and Section 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

3. This Court has heard Mr.Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:48:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1214/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Prosecutor for the appellant - State. Though served, none appears for and on behalf of the respondents - accused.

4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, three accused were tried and prosecuted for the offence of murder. Deceased Savabhai Parghi was agriculturist and also cultivating the land of the accused which was put on mortgage. Before the incident, there was a dispute with respect to taking crops in the mortgaged land. The accused being an owner of the land intended to take away the crops whereas the complainant party was having strong objection against this. On the next day, the deceased Savabhai, in order to resolve the dispute, went to the house of the accused, situated nearby their house. Again dispute being took place on the issue of crops and heated exchange of words being taken place, as a result, in a heat of passion, the accused Ramabhai heat the head of the deceased by giving stick. Meanwhile, the injured Devabhai and Jayantibhai came to rescue and they were also beaten by accused Mansingh and Lalsingh. The deceased taken to the hospital where he succumbed to injuries. The injured Devabhai was treated as the Civil Hospital. On the basis of FIR, and upon due completion of the investigation, the chargesheet for causing death of Savabhai and grievous injuries to the witnesses, came to be filed.

5. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Court committed the case to the Sessions Court, who has been culminated into Sessions Case No.166 of 2002.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1214/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra framed charges against the accused to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. In the course of trial, the prosecution adduced the following oral as well as documentary evidence in support of its case:

Oral evidence - 7 PW 1 - Exh.9 Dr. Sakjibhai Gavjibhai Bhabhor PW 2 - Exh.17 Badiyabhai Gamjibhai PW 3 - Exh.20 Jayantibhai Savabhai PW 4 - Exh.22 Devabhai Pathikbhai PW 5 - Exh.23 Lalabhai Heerabhai PW 6 - Exh.25 Chamnabhai Kalabhai PW 7 - Exh.26 Kanjibhai Roopjibhai Parmar Documentary evidence - 21 Exh.21 Complaint Exh.14 Inquest Panchnama Exh.15 Panchnama of place of offence Exh.16 Panchnama of place of offence Exh.18 Panchnama of state of body of accused Exh.19 Discovery pachnama under S.27 Exh.27 PM Yadi Exh.28 Yadi to inspect deceased body Exh.13 Report of deceased body Exh.29 Receipt of body after PM report Exh.30 Handing over of body to Jayantibhai Exh.10 Injury certificate Exh.11 Injury certificate Exh.31 Map of place of offence Exh.32 Xerox copy of announcement of ban on weapons Exh.33 Letter to FSL Vadodara for report of articles Exh.34 Forwarding notes Exh.35 FSL Letter Exh.36 FSL Forwarding letter Exh.37 FSL Report Exh.38 Serological report Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:48:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1214/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined

8. 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.

9. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326 and 323 of the IPC. However, the accused Ramabhai came to be convicted under Section 302 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment.

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

11. In the present case, the oral as well as medical evidence having not been challenged or disputed by the other side. Thus, it is proved that the death of Savabhai was homicide in nature. The only issue falls for our consideration is to whether the accused are guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

12. Mr.Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State, while 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. That the injury being Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:48:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1214/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined caused on the vital part of the body and as per the medical evidence, there were fractures found on the perital and frontal bone (skull) and therefore, the inference can be drawn that act was done with an intention of causing death and the causing such bodily injuries with the accused presumed to be knew that it likely to cause death by inflicting such injuries. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has wrongly given a benefit of lesser offence and ignored the evidence on record.

13. In such circumstances, it is submitted that matter squarely falls under Clause thirdly of the IPC and thus, there being merits in the appeal and the same may be allowed.

14. 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.

15. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:48:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1214/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Court.

16. In the present case, the Trial Court has discussed in details about the intention of the accused and manner in which the incident being taken place. In nutshell, the Trial Court has considered that the deceased himself went to the house of the accused and before the incident, there was dispute about the mortgaged land and taking away the crops by the complainant party and before one day of the incident, the heated exchange of words being taken place and on that count, deceased wanted to settle the issue and accordingly, he had informed his son complainant. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has observed that the act was not murdered as it was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon sudden quarrel and without having taken undue advantage. We are in complete agreements with the conclusion recorded by the Trial Court. There was a single blow on the head. Before the incident, there was heated exchange of words between the parties and it was not necessary for the deceased to meet the accused for compromise which indicative of the facts that the deceased himself intended to enter into fight with the accused party. We may refer the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju Vs. State of A.P. (2006 (11) SCC 444), wherein the Supreme Court in Para-29 of the judgment, while throwing light on the question of intention and the consideration that should weigh with the Courts in discerning whether an act is punishable as murder or culpable homicide, not amount to murder have been discussed which reads thus:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1214/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined "29. Therefore, the Court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases.

There may be no intention. There may be no pre-meditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:48:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1214/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention."

17. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, and considering the statutory provisions laid down in the IPC and law on the point, we find that present case falls into category of culpable homicide not amount to murder falling under Section 302 Part-II of the IPC for the reasons that there was no pre-meditation of mind to commit the murder and it was during the verbal altercation, the weapon stick being generally used for farming purpose was picked up by the A1 and inflicted a single blow on the head of the deceased. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the A1 for the act of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and while convicting the A1, the Trial Court has assigned cogent and sound reasons for arriving at the conclusion. Thus, therefore, the view of the Trial Court is possible and plausible view and the Trial Court while analyzing the evidence has assigned cogent and sound reasons and therefore, findings of acquittal qua A1 for not convicting the accused under Section 302 are reasonable and based on the evidence on record. So far as charge under Section 326 and Section 323 are concerned, the oral evidence is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence. Injured Devabhai was having injuries in the nature of inscide wound on right Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:48:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1214/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined side of parital region and stabbed wound on the right forearm. The opinion the doctor on the aspect of weapon is that the injuries could be possible by sharp cutting instrument. In the present case, the accused Mansingh inflicted blow with weapon stick and the injuries found on the body of the injured could not be possible with the weapon stick. In such circumstances, the Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to the other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 323 of IPC. Therefore, so far as A2 and A3 are concerned, we do not find any perversity in the findings of acquittal so as to interfere. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused under Sections 302, 326 and 323 of IPC, and we are in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of acquittal recorded by the Court below and hence finds no reason to interfere with the same.

18. 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.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) Rakesh Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:48:39 IST 2025