Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kanak Sinh Ganpat Sinh Parmar on 2 December, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 213 of 2001
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
KANAK SINH GANPAT SINH PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No. 233/1993, whereby the respondent-accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 337, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short), under Section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, 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 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. The complainant, resident of Dhansar Ni Muvadi, Taluka Halol, lodged a complaint before Halol Police Station alleging that the respondent-accused had illicit relations with the complainant's sister, leading to prior quarrels. On 13.06.1993 at about 13:30 hours, while the complainant's maternal aunt was filling water at the handpump near the house and the complainant was sitting on the otla, the accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with weapons such as bhala (spear), dhariya (sickle), lathi (stick), tamanchu (knife) and pipe, with common object to assault the complainant and witnesses. The accused hurled abuses at the complainant's maternal aunt, following which accused No. 1 inflicted a bhala blow on witness Chhatrasinh on his left hand, accused No. 9 inflicted a dhariya blow on witness Amarsinh on his left hand, accused No. 6 inflicted a knife blow on the chest of the said witness Amarsinh, accused No. 5 pelted stones at the complainant injuring his left elbow, and accused No. 1 threatened to kill the complainant and witnesses. The complainant's maternal aunt suffered a hand injury almost severing her hand. The accused were restrained by villagers who intervened. The injured were taken to hospital, and the complaint was lodged on the same day leading to registration of the offence.
2.2. The FIR came to be registered at Halol Police Station under the aforesaid sections bearing C.R. No. I-169/1993. The accused were arrested during investigation. After completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Halol, registered as Criminal Case No. 315/1993.
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
2.3. As the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Halol lacked jurisdiction to try the offences, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Panchmahals at Godhra vide order dated 28.07.1993 and registered as Sessions Case No. 233/1993 for trial. The case arose in the context of a cross-FIR (C.R. No. I-170/1993) where the deceased Ganpatsinh (father of accused No. 1) suffered fatal injuries leading to his death on 14.06.1993 at SSG Hospital, Vadodara, and the present case was tried alongside the cross-case. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the trial court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent-accused for their explanation under Section 313 of the Code. In their statements under Section 313, the respondent- accused denied all incriminating circumstances as false and claimed innocence and false implication. After examining the oral and documentary evidence and hearing submissions from both sides, the learned trial court recorded findings in favour of the respondent-accused and acquitted them of all charges.
3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Sessions Court. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined a total of 11 witnesses. The details of the oral and documentary evidence are as under:
~:: Oral Evidence ::~ Sr. Particular Exh.
No.
1 Lakshmansinh Udesinh - Panch Witness PW-1 26
2 Dr. Chandrakumar Bhatt - Medical Officer PW-2 32
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
3 Jitendrakumar Vitthalbhai - Complainant PW-3 38
4 Chhatrasinh - Injured Witness PW-4 40
5 Dr. Pravinaben - Medical Officer, SSG Hospital 41
6 Lalitaben - Injured Witness PW-6 48
7 Amarsinh - Injured Witness PW-7 49
8 Jayminaben Vitthalbhai PW-8 55
9 PSI Udesinh Thakor - Investigating Officer PW-9 58
10 PSO Chandulal Mansukhlal PW-10 59
11 PSI Rajeshkumar Pathak - Investigating Officer 67
PW-11
~:: Documentary Evidence ::~
Sr. Particular Exh.
No.
1 Panchnama of the place of incident 27
2 Complaint of the complainant 39
3 Panchnama of clothes of injured Lalitaben after 19
seizure
4 Panchnama of dhariya, knife and stick seized from 20
accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7
5 Panchnama of bhala, dhariya and stick seized from 21
accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5
6 Panchnama of iron rod seized from accused No. 9 22
7 Certificate regarding injury of Lalitaben from SSG 41
Hospital, Vadodara
8 Certificate regarding injury of Amarsinh from 34
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
Medical Officer, Halol
9 Yadi for treatment of complainant and witness 35
Chhatrasinh to Medical Officer, Halol
10 Muddamal dispatch note 68
11 FSL Receipt 69
12 Public notice regarding weapon seizure 70
13 Certificate regarding injury of Chhatrasinh from 36
Medical Officer, Halol
14 Certificate regarding injury of Jitendrasinh from 37
Medical Officer, Halol
15 Certificate regarding injury of Lalitaben from 33
Medical Officer, Halol
15 Certificate regarding injury of Amarsinh from SSG 43
Hospital, Vadodara
16 FSL Report and letter 66
4. The learned APP appearing for the appellant - State submitted that the impugned judgment requires interference, primarily relying upon the depositions of the complainant (PW-3 at Exh. 38) and the injured witnesses (PWs-4, 6 and 7 at Exhs. 40, 48 and 51). Their testimonies, according to the prosecution, establish the formation of unlawful assembly by the accused armed with weapons on 13.06.1993 at about 13:30 hours, the hurling of abuses, the assault on the complainant's maternal aunt resulting in severance of her hand, blows inflicted on witnesses Chhatrasinh and Amarsinh with bhala and dhariya respectively, a knife blow on Amarsinh's chest by accused No. 6, stone pelting by accused No. 5 injuring the complainant's elbow, and threats by accused No. 1 and No. 4. It is not in dispute that the injured suffered abrasions, Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined lacerated wounds and simple injuries requiring treatment, as supported by medical certificates (Exhs. 32 to 37, 41, 43 and 45). Hence, it was contended that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused.
4.1. The learned APP further submitted that the medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence regarding the use of weapons, and the panchnamas (Exhs. 27, 30, 31 and 22) confirm recovery of weapons from the accused, thereby warranting interference with the acquittal and conviction of the respondent-accused.
5. The learned Advocate for the respondent-accused submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. He contended that the testimonies of the complainant and injured witnesses are unreliable as they are highly interested parties being close relatives facing serious charges including murder in the cross-FIR (C.R. No. I-170/1993) for causing death of Ganpatsinh (father of accused No. 1). There are material contradictions between their police statements and court depositions, particularly regarding the mutual nature of the fight and injuries to the deceased. No independent witnesses from the village (with 60-70 houses) were examined despite mention of interveners in the complaint. The FIR is suspicious due to delay in recording and inconsistencies in the manner of its lodging. Weapons were recovered but FSL report (Exh. 66) does not link them conclusively to the injuries. The medical evidence shows only simple injuries, inconsistent with the alleged weapons in some cases. Hence, in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal is justified.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and perused the depositions of the witnesses, documentary evidence, and the judgment of the Sessions Court, it appears that the testimonies of the complainant and Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the injured witnesses, who are the star witnesses to the alleged incident, lack credibility on account of their partisan nature and inherent contradictions.
7. Upon careful scrutiny of the deposition of the complainant Jitendrakumar (PW-3, Exh. 38), it is evident that he narrated a completely one-sided assault by the accused armed with bhala, dhariya, lathi, tamancha and pipe on 13.06.1993 at about 13:30 hours. In cross- examination, however, he candidly admitted that his police statement recorded the incident as a "mutual fight" between the two groups and that Amarsinh had struck Ganpatsinh on the head with a lathi causing his death while Chhatrasinh had inflicted a dhariya blow on Ganpatsinh's hand -- material facts completely suppressed in his court testimony. He also admitted reaching the police station after visiting the hospital but denied giving any statement to the jamadar, which directly contradicts the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-9, Exh. 58). No prudent witness involved in a mutual riot, particularly when facing a murder charge in the cross-case, would suppress the grievous/fatal injuries sustained by the opposite party while projecting the incident as a wholly unprovoked attack. The complainant's failure to examine the alleged interveners (Somabhai Fulabhai, Mangal @ Yogibhai Fulabhai and others) whose names find place in the FIR further erodes the credibility of his version. Conviction cannot be sustained on such inconsistent and self- serving testimony.
8. Injured witness Chhatrasinh (PW-4, Exh. 40) deposed that he received a simple abrasion on his left hand from accused No.1 with a bhala, but in cross-examination admitted that his police statement described the incident as a "mutual fight" in which Ganpatsinh sustained a head injury and was shifted to Vadodara hospital -- facts conspicuously Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined absent from his court deposition. Similarly, injured witness Lalitaben (PW-6, Exh. 48) stated that Ganpatsinh severed her hand with a dhariya while she was at the handpump and that she fell down immediately thereafter; however, her police statement records that after she fell, the accused including Kanaksinh (with bhala), Sureshkumar (with dhariya) and others came rushing from Ganpatsinh's house -- a sequence she completely disowned in court. Injured witness Amarsinh (PW-7, Exh. 49) claimed a knife blow on the chest, but medical evidence (Exh. 34 and 43) shows only a simple lacerated wound wholly inconsistent with a knife injury to the chest; he too admitted in cross that his police statement recorded a mutual fight and his own fatal lathi blow on Ganpatsinh's head. Witness Jayminaben Vitthalbhai (PW-8, Exh. 55) admitted that when she reached the spot Lalitaben was already on the ground with her hand severed. All these witnesses are close relatives of the complainant and are themselves accused of murder/causing hurt in the cross-case arising out of the same incident. Their deliberate omission of the opponent's fatal injuries and the material contradictions between their police statements (admitting mutuality) and court depositions (projecting a one-sided assault) render their evidence wholly unreliable. No tamancha was recovered from accused No.4, fatally weakening the allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506(2) IPC.
9. Panch witness Lakshmansinh Udesinh (PW-1, Exh. 26) turned neutral and merely proved the scene-of-offence panchnama (Exh. 27). Medical officers Dr. Chandrakumar Bhatt (PW-2, Exh. 32) and Dr. Pravinaben (PW-5, Exh. 41) confirmed only simple injuries (abrasions and lacerated wounds) on the hands/elbows of the injured; none of the injuries fell within the ambit of Section 326 IPC. Significantly, the complainant had given history of a bhala injury to the doctor despite alleging injury by chappu in the FIR. Investigating and arresting officers Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined (PW-9 Exh. 58, PW-10 Exh. 59 & PW-11 Exh. 67) proved routine procedural steps, but the FSL report (Exh. 66) remained inconclusive. All panch witnesses remained formal. Despite the village comprising 60-70 houses and the presence of several named interveners, not a single independent villager was examined. The prosecution evidence thus stands completely uncorroborated by any neutral source.
10. Though the medical evidence confirms simple injuries on the complainant side, the deliberate suppression by the complainant and injured witnesses of the mutuality admitted in their police statements and the fatal injuries sustained by Ganpatsinh in the cross-case creates an insurmountable doubt. The suspicious circumstances surrounding the lodging of the FIR -- the complainant claiming he went straight to the police station after the hospital, whereas the PSI (PW-9) asserting that he recorded the FIR at the spot at 13:30 hours itself -- strongly suggest subsequent embellishment to present a one-sided picture. In factional village clashes giving rise to cross-FIRs where the witnesses themselves face reciprocal murder charges, ocular evidence requires strong independent corroboration, which is conspicuously absent. The glaring contradictions on the sequence of events and the complete non- explanation of fatal injuries on the deceased of the opposite side entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.
11. The cumulative effect of the following circumstances, when viewed in their entirety, leaves no room for any conclusion other than that the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is impeccable and unassailable: the ocular witnesses are not only closely inter-related but are themselves accused of murder and grievous hurt in the cross-case arising out of the same transaction; they have made material improvements of a very serious nature by completely suppressing in court Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the mutuality of assault and the fatal injuries sustained by Ganpatsinh which they had candidly admitted before the police; despite a village of 60-70 houses and the presence of several named interveners, not a single independent witness has been examined; the recoveries are inconclusive and the alleged tamancha has never been produced or recovered; there are glaring inconsistencies in the medical history given by the complainant himself; and serious doubts surround the very registration of the FIR owing to the contradictory versions of the complainant and the Investigating Officer. In the face of such vitally infirm, partisan and contradictory evidence emerging from a typical faction-ridden village brawl giving rise to cross-cases, no court of law can possibly sustain a conviction without perpetuating grave miscarriage of justice. The benefit of these insurmountable doubts must necessarily enure to the accused.
12. Independently, the alleged motive of illicit relations pales into insignificance when weighed against the admissions in the police statements and the cross-FIR revealing simultaneous assault from both sides. The nature of injuries noted in the medical certificates are consistent with a free fight rather than a premeditated attack by an unlawful assembly. In the absence of reliable evidence establishing a common object, vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC cannot be fastened. The charges under the Arms Act and the Bombay Police Act also collapse for want of recovery of any unlicensed tamancha and for vague and uncorroborated allegations of brandishing firearms.
13. 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 field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: -
Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined "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 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.
(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."
14. 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;
Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/213/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
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 finding 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."
15. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that the case of the prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) MVP Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:37:53 IST 2025