Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Babubhai Kalidas Rathod on 5 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 of 2000
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BABUBHAI KALIDAS RATHOD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 05/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT)
1. The present appeal is filed by the State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1978, assailing the judgment and order dated 17.08.2000 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, in Sessions Case No. 168 of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court"), whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").
Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2.1 The complainant, Surendra Singh Rajput, is a resident of Village Vada (Karoli), Taluka Navsari, District Valsad, and has three children-
two sons and one daughter, Darshnaben, aged about 13 years. Darshnaben was studying in the 8th standard at Maroli Vasi High School. When she did not return home from school on 12.07.1987, her father, the complainant, searched for her. He was eventually informed by one of the villagers, Dilipbhai Gulabsinh, that the body of Darshnaben had been found in an open area near the outskirts of their village, Karoli, and that the body was in a naked condition.
3. Upon receiving this information and reaching the spot, he found the dead body of his daughter, Darshnaben, in the said condition. He informed his relatives and ultimately reported the incident to the nearest police station. The officials of Jalalpur Police Station reached the spot, and thereafter a formal complaint was registered by Surendra Singh, the father of the victim, as C.R. No. (I)-103/1997.
4. After registering the complaint and conducting the investigation, the police found that the accused was involved in the crime. He was arrested, charge-sheeted, and as the offence was triable by the Sessions Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined Court, the case was committed to the Trial Court for trial under Sections 302, 376, and 201 of the IPC.
5. The prosecution produced oral and documentary evidence to prove the charges against the accused, as follows:
Sr. No. Witness No. Name Exhibit
1. 2. 3. 4.
1. 2. The Complainant, Surendrasinh 9
Pratapsinh
3. 4. Ramanbhai Durlabhbhai 11
5. 6. Mukeshbhai Udaysinh 17
7. 8. Govindbhai Kalidasbhai 20
9. 10. Bhikhubhai Bachubhai 24
11. 12. Bansibhai Bhikhabhai 27
13. 14. Ramanbhai Chhaganbhai 28
15. 16. Rameshbhai Ramjibhai 30
17. 18. Vasudev Bhaikhabhai 31
19. 20. Iliyasbhai Ibrahimbhai Sheikh 32
21. 22. Dr. Anilbhai Maganbhai 35
23. 24. Sureshbhai Bhuramalbhai 39
25. 26. Sarojben Surendrasinh 41
27. 28. Rakesh @ Lalo Motisinh 42
29. 30. Dilipsinh Gulabsinh 43
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
31. 32. Dayalbhai Parshottambhai 44
33. 34. Sumitabahen Rajubhai 45
35. 36. Amaratbhai Jethabhai 46
37. 38. Bachubhai Somabhai 48
39. 40. Revabahen Natubhai 49
41. 42. Daxabahen Girishbhai 50
43. 44. Balvantbhai Dahyabhai 53
45. 46. Dattatreya Shankarbhai 55
47. 48. Dr. Jayantilal Dharmsinh 57
49. 50. Harshadray Manilal 60
51. 52. Jayendrasinh Anilsinh Jadeja 62
53. 54. PSI Novelbhai V. Parmar 63
6. Furthermore, the prosecution has relied upon the following documentary evidence:
Sr. No. Description of the Document and Exhibit
1. Original Complaint, Exhibit-10
2. Inquest Panchnama, Exhibit-34
3. Panchnama of the crime scene, Exhibit-12
4. Panchnama regarding the accused showed the place of offence, Exhibit-21
5. Panchnama regarding identification of the steel box found from the place of offence, Exhibit-25
6. Panchnama regarding identification of the similar steel boxes by Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined the witness, Exhibit-26
7. Panchnama regarding seizure of the steel box from the home of the witness, Dayalajibhai, Exhibit-29
8. Panchnama of the clothes wearing by the accused at the time of incident, Exhibit-61
9. Panchnama regarding identification of the sleepar wearing by the accused, Exhibit-33
10. P. M. Report, Exhibit-36
11. Caused of Death Certificate, Exhibit-37
12. Report of the F. S. L., Exhibit-65
13. Certificate of age and sex of the deceased, Darshanabahen, Exhibit-52
14. Map of the place of offence, Exhibit-47
7. Thereafter, considering the submissions made by both sides and upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence led before the Trial Court, the Court found that there was no clinching evidence against the accused by which he could be proven guilty of committing the crime. Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted him of the charges levelled against him vide the judgment and order.
Submissions of appellant:-
Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined
8. Learned APP, Mr. Bhargav Pandya, has taken us through the voluminous oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution before the Trial Court and has also read the impugned judgment, thereby trying to substantiate the prosecution's case that the accused was wrongly acquitted by the Trial Court.
8.1 Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya would submit that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that, one minor girl- aged above 13 years, was not only raped but also murdered by the accused, and that there is ample evidence to prove his involvement in the crime, which was completely ignored by the Trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that from the spot, tiffin box and sleeper of the accused recovered by the police and as per evidence on the record, it involved the accused.
8.2 Learned APP would further submit that the medical evidence led by the prosecution and the post mortem report available on record would indicate that the victim was subjected to rape. Furthermore, when the accused himself declared before the Medical Officer, namely, Jayantilal (Exh. 57), that he had committed rape and the same was Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined recorded in his medical history, it was sufficient in itself to prove the accused guilty of such a heinous crime.
8.3 Learned APP would further submit that even though witness Bachubhai (Exh-48) turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, in his cross-examination it has come on record that he saw the accused near the spot where the crime happened, and the timing which was narrated by him also matched with the case of the complainant.
8.4 Making the above submissions, learned APP would request this Court to allow this Appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.
9. Though served, none appears for the respondent-accused.
10. Before adverting to the issue germane in the appeal, the scope of interference in the appeal by this Court, that too in an acquittal appeal filed by the State under Section 378 of CrPC, needs to be taken note of.
Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined 10.1 In a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149, wherein the Honourable Apex Court taking note of its previous decisions, held thus:
"39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. 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: -
"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 of 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 Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined 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."
40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court 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;8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re- appreciating 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 Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined 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."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-
41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material.
41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.
42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court."
11. Now, adverting to the facts of the case, even after appreciating the submissions of learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya and upon re-
appreciation of the entire evidence led by the prosecution before the Trial Court, we are of the view that there is no error committed by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused, for the following reasons. 11.1 The case of the prosecution is entirely based upon circumstantial evidence. In that view of the matter, a heavy burden was cast upon the Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt to bring home the charge against the accused.
11.2 True, the crime was a heinous one, but at the same time, the accused cannot be held guilty on conjectures and surmises. Rather, in such types of cases, it is the duty of the prosecution to lead appropriate evidence on record to complete chain of event so that no innocent person is punished, while at the same time ensuring the guilty do not go unpunished.
11.3 The Trial Court, in Para-17 of its impugned judgment and order, has noticed the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution, which we would not like to reiterate as we do not wish to burden our judgment. It can only be observed that there is no direct evidence led by the prosecution against the accused whereby it can be confirmed beyond doubt that only the accused committed such a heinous crime. 11.4 The prosecution appears to have relied upon testimony of so many witnesses but more emphasised upon two material witnesses, namely, Bachubhai Somabhai (PW-19, Exh-48) and Revaben Motibhai (PW-20, Exh-49) and so also recovered Muddamal i.e. tiffin box and one sleeper. 11.5 The oral evidence of Revaben Motibhai confirmed that on the fateful day, i.e., 12.09.1997, she saw the accused with a tiffin box having taken his lunch near her house. However, that is not sufficient in itself to Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined prove the involvement of the accused in the crime, inasmuch as the mere recovery of a tiffin box near the dead body of the victim, Darshnaben, would not, ipso facto, be self-sufficient evidence to involve the accused in the crime. Furthermore, during her cross-examination, PW-49 Revaben confirmed that the tiffin box from which the accused took his lunch was smaller in size than the tiffin box shown to her at trial, collected by the police as Muddamal. The names of two different persons were found on the lid of the tiffin box and on the box itself; on the lid, the name 'Sumitaben Dayalji' was written, and on the box, the name 'Bhikhubhai Khapabhai' was written. Upon further investigation, nothing turned out against the accused whereby it could be proved that the tiffin box collected near the spot belonged to him.
11.6 It also requires to be noted that the Trial Court has correctly observed in its impugned judgment that when the accused was made to wear the slipper in the presence of panchas-which was collected from the spot by the police-it did not fit his feet. This fact is confirmed by one of the Panch witnesses in his deposition. This was also one of the factors weighed in favor of the accused; thereby, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the complete chain of events to bring home the charge against the accused.
Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined 11.7 Likewise, PW-19 Bachubhai Somabhai turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. It requires to be noted that based on the statement of the aforesaid witness, the accused was implicated in the commission of the crime in question. Even if we take his evidence at its face value, there is nothing to prove that the accused committed the crime.
11.8 It is undisputed on record that PW-19 Bachubhai Somabhai never saw the accused committing the crime in question. Rather, on his assumption, having seen the accused passing near the canal at the relevant point of time, he presumed that the accused might be involved in the crime. Thus, his evidence does not carry the case of the prosecution any further.
11.9 So far as the parents of the victim, namely Surendrabhai (complainant) and Sarojben (mother), are concerned, though examined by the prosecution, they are of no help to the case of the prosecution. Rather, Sarojben, the mother of the victim, deposed in her evidence that two other girls accompanied the victim Darshnaben to school. Unfortunately, the prosecution has not examined those two girls, namely Aasha and Karma, who might have studied with the victim Darshnaben and could have thrown some light on how the victim proceeded after school. Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined 11.10 It is true that the Medical Officer (PW-57) confirmed in his deposition that the accused admitted before him that he had committed rape. However, on appreciation of his evidence, it does not reveal that such a confessional statement by the accused was in relation to the subject crime. In the absence of any other corroborative evidence, it is highly unsafe to disturb the acquittal.
11.11 Lastly, it is very unfortunate that the prosecution did not send any sample from the accused to the FSL, a fact observed by the Trial Court in Para-29 of its impugned judgment. If such evidence had been brought on record by the prosecution, there might have been a possibility to link the accused with the commission of the crime in question. 11.12 Even otherwise, when the prosecution failed to prove the complete chain of events, the view taken by the Trial Court cannot be said to be either erroneous or patently perverse, and thus, does not require any interference by this Court.
12. All the above factors would clearly suggest that there are weaknesses and shortcomings in the case of the prosecution, and the evidence led by the prosecution has not inspired any confidence, at least in us, whereby we can overturn the decision of the learned Trial Court acquitting the respondent-accused.
Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/990/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined
13. Thus, in view of the above-referred flaws in the evidence of the prosecution and after going through the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court, we are in complete agreement with the reasons and the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the respondent-accused.
14. Considering this evidence on record and in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to hereinabove, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, in Sessions Case No. 168 of 1997 (Trial Court) while acquitting the respondent-accused.
15. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is found to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. The bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) (P. M. RAVAL, J) MOHD SAIF ULLAH Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Dec 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:51:06 IST 2025