Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jivanbhai Chhitabhai Parmar on 19 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JIVANBHAI CHHITABHAI PARMAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AR MAJMUDAR(428) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 19/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. The challenge is given by the State to the judgment of acquittal dated 26.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.124 of 2000. The trial was against two accused under Sections 302, 337, 506(2) and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). The learned Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined Trial Court Judge observed that the offence against both the accused was not proved as per the charge-sheet and thus, found that the prosecution has failed to establish the case and on that ground acquitted both the accused.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant - Ramji was residing at village Manjrole near the house of the present accused. In the backyard of the complainant, an altercation took place between deceased and accused for the division made with old bricks and, as the bricks were lying scattered, the mother of the complainant was adjusting them, at that time, both the accused came there and abused the mother of the complainant, objecting her. The charge, which was raised is that on instigation by accused No.2, accused No.1 threw a brick on the mother of the complainant and on hearing the shouts of deceased - Punjiben, the complainant rushed to the place of incident. Before he could reach there, accused No.1 gave a blow with a brick on the neck of the deceased. The deceased became unconscious and was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead.
3. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt submitted that the evidence was led by the son (PW1), brother (PW2), who had turned hostile, Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined grandson (PW3) of the deceased and one Tanubhai (PW4), who was a labourer working in the field. The evidence of the Doctor (PW5) refers to the postmortem. Ms. Bhatt also refers to the FSL report, which she states, though does not support, but the evidence of the witnesses do confirm the intention of the accused to commit murder.
3.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt further stated that, PW10 had been all throughout with the Investigating Officer-Mr. Vaghela in the investigation and Investigating Officer Mr. Vaghela could not be examined because of his sickness, thus, Ms. Bhatt submitted that PW10 is aware of the facts of the investigation.
4. Perused the judgment and the analysis of the evidence by the learned Trial Court Judge. The place of offence was recorded through the panchnama at Exh.28, however, no panchas had supported the panchnama. The Investigating Officer could not be examined, but the P.S.O., who was along with the Investigating Officer has referred to the facts and investigation undertaken. According to the P.S.O., the clothes were sent for FSL examination. The case was pleaded on record that accused No.2 had instigated accused No.1 and thereby, he had thrown the brick on deceased Punjiben, which had turned fatal leading to Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined her death.
4.1 The learned Trial Court Judge has referred to the deposition of the witnesses. The complainant, as such is not an eyewitness to the incident because he states that he ran to the place after the shouts of his mother. The learned Judge could examine the deposition of the Doctor - Hitendra Kantibhai Gandhilal Dhobi and the P.M. report at Exh.15, which notes that the death was because of the hemorrhage and because of that head injury, the death has been caused.
4.2 The learned Trial Court Judge observed that there is no evidence on record that the brick was thrown by accused No.1 on the instigation of accused No.2. While the Doctor stated that such kind of injury could be caused, if deceased Punjiben falls down because of the push and in that circumstances falling on the pile of brick, such injuries could not be denied and that could be the cause of death.
5. The FSL report could not corroborate the evidence. The blood stains clothes were not believed, as no support could be found from the FSL report. The panchas could not prove the case. The fact of blow by the brick was not believed. The learned Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined Judge was an opinion that the altercation could have caused the lady deceased to fall on the pile of brick and thereby she may have sustained injury, which has caused the death. Hence, the intention of murder was not believed by the trial Court Judge.
6. In the case of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2024 (3) SCC 164], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"61. In a case of acquittal, if the trial court's view is a possible or plausible view, then the Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in interfering with it. It is the settled legal position that there is presumption of innocence and that presumption is further fortified with the acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal unless it comes to a clear conclusion that the judgment of the trial court is utterly perverse and, on the basis of the evidence on record, no other view is plausible or possible than the one taken by the Appellate Court or the High Court."
6.1 12. In the case of Kallu Vs. State of M.P., [(2006) 10 SCC 313], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court."Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined
7. This Court does not find any infirmity in the analysis of the evidence. Nothing could be brought on record to show that any contrary view to be taken. There is no patent illegality in the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court Judge.
8. In view of the above discussions and observations, the present appeals stands dismissed. The Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) (MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) Pankaj/8 Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:12 IST 2025