Gujarat High Court
Anabhai Dhanabhai Raidara (Adivasi) vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1736 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ANABHAI DHANABHAI RAIDARA (ADIVASI)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR L B DABHI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant namely Anabhai Dhanabhai Raidara (Adivasi) (hereinafter referred to as the "Accused" for the sake of convenience) under the provisions of Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined dated 31.03.2016, passed by the Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, Banaskantha, in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2013, recorded below Exhibit 89, wherein, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default thereof, sentence of simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details as they reveal from the documents, are as follows:-
2.1 The Complainant Bhikhabhai Rupabhai Raidara, resident of Amirgadh, lodged a complaint before the Amirgadh police station on 30-03-2013, inter alia, stating that on the night of 23-03-2013, while he was present at his residence, his younger brother Lalabhai had gone to the field of Babubhai Devabhai Raidara, at about 10:30 in the night shouting took place near the house of Anabhai Dhanabhai Raidara. He rushed out of his residence along with his wife, and his cousin brother Bhurabhai Pumabhai also rushed towards the house of Anabhai, where they saw Anabhai holding a knife in his hand and were trying to clap one and other and were fighting. During that time, Anabhai stabbed Lalabhai on the left side of his chest, due to which blood started flowing and Lalabhai fell down. On seeing the complainant and other people, he went away with the knife into the dark. On reaching near his brother, they saw that blood was oozing out of his chest and he was not alive.
Based on the aforesaid complaint, a FIR bearing CR-I-32 of 2013 was registered before the Amirgadh police station for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned court and was registered as Criminal Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Case No. 264 of 2013.
2.2 Since the case was Sessions triable, it was committed before the Sessions Court Palanpur, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 41 of 2013.
2.3 Charges were framed against the present accused vide Exhibit 5 and plea was recorded at Exhibit 6, to which the appellant - original accused, denied the charges and prayed for trial.
2.4 To bring on the charges, prosecution has relied upon the following witnesses.
Sr Name of Witness Particulars Exh.
No.
1 Babubhai Kadabai Vansiya Panch Witness 09
2 Ramabhai Rugjibhai Garasiya Panch Witness 11
3 Chogbhai Somabhai Raidara Panch Witness 13
4 Rukhjibhai Savabhai Raidara Panch Witness 18
5 Monabhai Devabhai Raidara Panch Witness 19
6 Lalabhai Bhanabhai Raidara Panch Witness 21
7 Hariji Dhanaji Chadokhiya Panch Witness 24
8 Bhupatji Malaji Dabhi Panch Witness 28
9 Narayanbhai Dalsukhbhai Raval witness 30
10 Rameshbhai Kalubhai Garasiya Panch Witness 34
11 Mansingh Chandansingh A.H.O 36
12 Bhikhabhai Rupabhai Raidara Complainant 44
13 Bhurabhai Pomabhai Raidara Witness 47
14 Dr. Gangaram Sukhram Ramsnehi Medical Officer 50
15 Badiben Bhurabhai Raidara Witness 55
16 Sumiben Bhikhabhai Raidara Witness 56
17 Naransinh Jamatsinh Dabhi Panch Witness 57
18 Muliben Lalabhai Raidara Witness 60
19 Vishnukumar Ramjibhai I.O 62
Chaudhari
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
The prosecution has also relied on the following documentary evidence.
Sr Exh. Particulars No. 1 14 Panchnama of Place of Incident 2 20 Panchnama of recovery of Muddamal 3 25 Panchnama of Physical condition of Deceased 4 35 Panchnama of discovery of Muddamal knife 5 37 Suchipatra 6 45 Complaint 7 51 P.M. Note 8 52 Yadi prepared by PSI, Amirgadh for P.M Note 9 54 Death Certificate given by Doctor 10 63 Yadi prepared by PSI, Amirgadh for registered of crime 11 64 Yadi for filling up inquest sent to Exe. Magistrate 12 65 Report for PM Note sent to Medical Officer. 13 66 Primary Report of FSL 14 67 Map of place of incident 15 68 Dispatch Note 16 69 Letter of FSL to take Back Muddamal 17 10 Inquest Panchnama 18 70 FSL Report 19 71 Report of Sirology Department 2.5 Vide Exhibit 74, the prosecution declared that they do not wish to examine any further witnesses and thus filed closing purshis. Thereafter, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded. However, no witnesses were examined in his defence. After considering oral as well as written arguments from both sides, by a judgment and order dated 31-03-2016, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur at Banaskantha, the present appellant was convicted to life Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC and was also imposed a fine of 5000 rupees, and in default thereof, 6 months simple imprisonment. Set-off was also granted under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by the judgment and the order of conviction, the present Appellant- Org. Accused has filed the present Criminal Appeal.
3. Learned Advocate Dr. Hardik. K. Raval for the accused has mainly contended that:
1) The Learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
2) Though the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, at least five witnesses have deposed as if they witnessed the incident.
3) The Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant on the basis of the deposition of witnesses who are not trustworthy and are close relatives of the deceased.
4) The Trial Court has committed a serious error in accepting the evidence of PW-12 at Exhibit 14, Bhikha Bhai Raigara, who was the brother of the deceased.
5) The deposition of the complainant at Exhibit 44 is full of contradictions and thus his testimony cannot be relied upon.
6) The deposition of Bhura Bhai Poma Bhai Raigara, PW-
13 at Exhibit 47, has not stated any facts regarding the present accused in his entire testimony and thus his evidence cannot be considered as it is hearsay.
Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
7) The Trial Court has committed a grave error in not looking for any corroboration to substantiate the prosecution's case.
8) Despite the Panchas having turned hostile, the Trial Court committed an error in relying upon the Panchanamas, especially since no mark of blood of the deceased was found on the weapon as stated by the Panchas. Hence, the accused cannot be connected with the alleged crime.
9) All five witnesses are entrusted witnesses; therefore, independent witnesses ought to have been examined. Having failed to do so, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Learned APP Mr. L. B. Dabhi for the State has argued that 4.1 The complainant is the brother of the deceased and is an eyewitness. His deposition remains unshaken. Therefore, the number of witnesses examined is not important; rather, the quality of the witnesses must be considered. In the present case, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the defense has failed to shake the veracity of the witnesses; thus, the conviction cannot be interfered with.
4.2 Though five witnesses, including the informant, are related to the deceased and have been cross-examined in detail, nothing adverse to the prosecution's case has come on record, and hence, the Trial Court has correctly convicted the present accused.
Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 4.3 The fact that the incident took place at about 10:30 at night without any light, as argued by the accused, is not acceptable since the informant and other witnesses are close relatives, and there is no positive evidence to show that it was totally dark or that there was no light where the incident took place. Hence, the contention should be rejected, and the conviction upheld.
4.4 It is also argued that the investigating officer, in his deposition, has proved the fact of discovery at the instance of the accused, and hence the discovery of the knife at the incident proves the case beyond reasonable doubt, following the four corners of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
4.5 Further, the motive has been established and proved by the prosecution regarding the amount outstanding to be paid by the father of the deceased for repairing the machine's water pump, and hence no case is made out by the present appellant, the original accused. Thus, it is argued that the present appeal is meritless and should be rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. This Court has gone through the record and proceedings of the case, the impugned judgment, and has also considered the arguments of both sides.
Analysis of witnesses being close relatives of the deceased.
5.1 One of the arguments of the accused is that all the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and hence corroboration is required from independent witnesses. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Dalipsingh and others Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1953 AIR 364, wherein, it is held as under:-
"....A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause' for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.This is not to say that in a given case a Judge for reasons special to that case and to that witness cannot say that he is not prepared to believe the witness because of his general unreliability, or for other reasons, unless he is corroborated. Of course, that can be done. But the basis for such a conclusion must rest on facts special to the particular instance and cannot be grounded on a supposedly general rule of prudence enjoined by law as in the case of accomplices. "
As held in the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised that close relatives are usually the last persons to falsely implicate an innocent individual. Therefore, while evaluating the evidence of related witnesses, the Court must focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony before the Court. This approach ensures that such evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties but is instead assessed on the basis of its inherent reliability and its consistency with other Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined evidence on record.
This preposition has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Md. Rojali Ali and others Vs. The State of Assam Ministry of Home Affairs through Secretary reported in (2019) 19 SCC 567, (2) Ganapathi Vs. State of T.N reported in (2018) 5 SCC 549 and (3) Jayabalan Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry reported in (2010) 1 SCC 199. 5.2 In the present case, the complainant and four other witnesses who have been examined are closely related to the deceased. The complainant, Mr. Bhikhabhai Rupabhai Raidara who is examined vide Exhibit 44, is the brother of the deceased. Mr. Bhurabhai Pomabhai Raidara, examined at Exhibit 47, is the cousin brother of the deceased. Badiben Bhurabhai Raidara, examined at Exhibit 55, is the wife of Bhurabhai Pomabhai Raidara and Sumiben Bhikhabhai Raidara, at Exhibit 56, is the wife of the complainant and Muliben Lalabhai Raidara, examined at Exhibit 60, is the daughter of the deceased.
5.3 Upon perusal of the entire examination-in-chief of all these witnesses, their testimonies remain consistent with respect to the accused person being the assailant who inflicted the wound on the deceased. It reveals from the sequence of events that transpire from the record that the deceased was subjected to a stab by knife, and on hearing shouting, it was natural conduct for other members present in the residence to rush to the spot. Thus, their presence at the spot of the incident as eyewitnesses has been well established.
5.4 In such circumstances, merely because the complainant and the other four witnesses are family Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined members, their testimony cannot be discarded solely on this ground, particularly when nothing inconsistent has been brought on record in the cross-examination, coupled with the fact that the defence has not been able to shake their credibility, as revealed from their cross-examination referred to hereinafter.
5.5 On perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant Bhikhabhai Rupabhai Raidara at Exhibit 44, he has denied the fact that there was no light near the well where the incident took place and at the residence. His witness also denied the fact that Anabhai Dhanabhai was asking for a share of the expenses in repairing the machine which was installed in the well from Lalabhai Raidara which Lalabhai refused to pay, and therefore, the present accused has been wrongly implicated. He has also denied the suggestion that due to darkness, he has not witnessed the incident of inflicting injury by the accused on the deceased. He has further denied the fact that since the incident took place before the house of Anabhai, the accused is wrongly implicated in the case.
5.6 On perusal of the cross-examination of Sumiben bhikhabhai Raidara at Exhibit 56, this witness denied the fact that she could not hear the shouting since the distance more between her residence and the place of incident. This witness also denied the fact that there was no light at the place of incident.
5.7 On perusal of the cross-examination of Muliben Lalabhai Raidara Exhibit 60, she admitted the fact that since there was no light, the diesel water pump was placed near the well to extract water. However, she denied the fact Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined of there being no light near the said machine. She also denied the fact that because the incident had taken place near the house of accused Anabhai, the accused has been wrongly implicated and since they are close relatives of the deceased and complainant, she is said to have lied on oath.
5.8 On perusal of the cross-examination of Bhurabhai Pomabhai Raidara at Exhibit 47, this witness denied the suggestion that some other person with intention of killing Lalabhai was involved, and on hearing the shouting, persons from the residence of Anabhai and their brother from nearby houses rushed to the place of incident. This witness also denied the fact that when the dead body was found near the house of the present accused, it was because the accused had to pay a sum to the deceased or his family members.
5.9 On perusal of the cross-examination of Badiben Bhurabhai Raidara at Exhibit 55, the witness denied the defense's suggestion that she reached the place of incident after Lalabhai had expired. She also denied that because of more land being allotted to the father of the deceased, Anabhai, there was a grudge between the families. She further denied the fact that because of the neem tree in front of the house of Anabhai, his residence cannot be seen from a far distance. She also negated the suggestion that after the family members had gathered, they had decided to lodge the complaint. Thus, from the cross-examination of the witnesses, it cannot be said that the prosecution case has been shaken from its root. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because the witnesses are close relatives, their deposition needs corroboration from other independent witnesses.
Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Analysis of incident at 10.30 in the night and non- identification of the accused 5.10 It is also required to be noted that the defense has raised a contention that the incident took place at about 10:30 p.m. in a dark night, and in such darkness, identification of the accused was not possible. In this regard, as noted above, the fact of there being no light at the well is proved. However, the contention that there was no light near the house or near the well is not proved.
It is also required to be taken into consideration that the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol Vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala reported in AIR 2021 SC 3532 has held as under:-
"12. There is evidence about the availability of light near the place of occurrence. Even otherwise, that there may not have been any source of light is hardly considered relevant in view of the fact that the parties were known to each other from earlier. The criminal jurisprudence developed in this country recognizes that the eye sight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far better than compared to the town folks. Identification at night between known persons is acknowledged to be possible by voice, silhouette, shadow, and gait also. Therefore, we do not find much substance in the submission of the respondents that identification was not possible in the night to give them the benefit of doubt. "
In view of the foregoing principles of law and the facts of the case, the witnesses being relatives who are known to each other and familiar, identification at night between known persons is possible by voice in the present case. Since upon hearing the shout, they immediately rushed to the place of the incident, the submission of the accused that identification was not possible at night is rejected. Effect of non-proving of varoius panchnamas 5.11 It is also required to be noted that the inquest Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined panchanama at Exhibit 10, the panchanama of place of incident at Exhibit 14, the clothes of the deceased recovered at Exhibit 20, the panchanama of recovery of clothes of the accused and his physical condition at Exhibit 25, as well as the discovery panchanama at Exhibit 35, are not proved strictly in accordance with law. However, this does not shake the credibility of the eyewitnesses. In the present case, the panchanamas may not have been proved along with the discovery of the knife. Nevertheless, the fact of the incident cannot be denied since these panchanamas are merely corroborative in nature, and hence the prosecution case is not vitally affected on the aspect of injury being inflicted by the accused on the deceased.
A panchanama is essentially a record of what the panchas (witnesses) observe at the place of offence or while collecting the clothes of the deceased or accused, or during the discovery of weapons. The panchanama can only be proved when these panchas testify on oath about what they saw at the time of its drawing. The purpose of drawing the panchanama is to safeguard the case against any unfair practices by the investigating officer. Therefore, a panchanama serves as corroborative evidence and cannot be treated as substantive evidence. In such circumstances, where the eyewitnesses have deposed, being substantive evidence, the failure to prove the panchanama would not necessarily undermine the credibility of the eyewitnesses nor does it fatally or automatically harm the prosecution's case. Consequently, it cannot be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, nor can it be said that the prosecution's case is vitiated. Under such circumstances, the failure to prove the panchanamas does not benefit the accused.
Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Analysis of injury by the weapon used in commiting the crime.
5.12 On perusal of the deposition of Dr. Gangaram Sukhram Ramsnehi at Exhibit 50, PW-14, more particularly, the cross-examination, it is stated that the injury seen on the dead body can be inflicted by the knife which was recovered and shown in columns 17 and 18. These witnesses have been cross-examined to prove that the injury inflicted by the alleged knife was not possible. In the cross-examination, the defense has asked questions to which the answer is affirmative that there is a 20-cm wound inside the body. The witness has denied the suggestion that the knife at Article 8 shown to him would require the entire knife to be inserted inside the body. He has accepted the suggestion that the wound would be of the size of the end of the sharp edge. However, he clarified that if there is movement while taking out the knife, the wound would be even deeper. Thus, the defense argument is that the Article 8 knife is only 21 cm long in total, and by such a knife a 20- cm deep wound cannot be inflicted, is not supported by the testimony of the witness.
At this stage, it would be preferrable to refer the judgement in the case of Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol Vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala reported in AIR 2021 SC 3532 wherein, it is held as under:-
"... It is only in a case where there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved...."
In view of the aforesaid principles of law, and considering the deposition of Doctor, the medical evidence does not make the ocular testimony in probable nor does it rules out all the possibility of ocular evidence being true.
Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Under such circumstances, the ocular evidence has to be relied upon and believed.
Analysis of non- explaination of injury to the Accused.
5.13 One of the contentions raised by the Appellant is that the prosecution failed to prove the injury allegedly inflicted upon him, for which a cross-complaint was also filed. In this regard, the deposition of Vishnukumar Ramjibhai Chaudhari (PW-19) at Exh. 62 is relevant. Upon perusal of the deposition, he stated that Accused Anabhai Dhanabhai had lodged a cross-complaint in the present case and had sustained a head injury. He was sent to CHC, Amirgadh, with a police yadi. During cross-examination, the Investigating Officer also admitted that the accused had injuries on his body as well as both hands. The panchnama of the accused, prepared by the Investigating Officer and exhibited at Exh. 25, was drawn up after he had received medical treatment. It is a well-established principle of law that the prosecution is not obliged to explain injuries on the person of the accused in every case and under all circumstances. Whether the prosecution's failure to explain such injuries renders its case doubtful depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It is for the defence to raise specific questions regarding injuries to the accused during cross-examination. When such questions are not put to the prosecution witnesses, there is no occasion for those witnesses to explain the injuries on the accused.
In this regard, the decision in Ramsundar Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar , rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is relevant. In that case, the Court took note of an earlier three-Judge Bench decision in Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Bhaba Nanda Sarma vs. State of Assam , (1977) 4 SCC 396, wherein it was held that the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on the person of the accused in all cases and under all circumstances. The Supreme Court further referred to another three-Judge Bench decision in Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in (1990) 3 SCC 190, where, in Paragraph 10, it was held as follows:
"In Mohar Rai's case [(1968) 3 SCR 525 ; AIR 1968 SC 1281 ; 1968 Cri LJ 1479] it is made clear that failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused may show that the evidence related to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Likewise in Lakshmi Singh's case [(1976) 4 SCC 394 ; 1976 scc (Cri) 671] also it is observed that any non-expla- nation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a non-explanation may assume greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case. Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case."
5.14 In view of the aforestated principles, the present case must be examined in light of the depositions of the eyewitnesses. Not a single question was put to any of the eyewitnesses regarding the injuries sustained by the accused, except for questions directed at the Investigating Officer. Therefore, when no specific defence has been raised by the accused to challenge or shake the prosecution's Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined version of events, and when cogent and credible evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution, the mere non-explanation of the injuries on the accused cannot, by itself, form a basis to reject the testimony of such trustworthy witnesses. Accordingly, the argument advanced by the accused does not merit acceptance.
Non- availability of accused at the time of incidence.
5.15 It was also argued by the learned Advocate for the accused that the Investigating Officer admitted during his cross-examination that, while investigating the present offence, the family members of the accused--including his real brothers and the accused himself--were not present at the residence. Based this, it was contended that the absence of the accused from his house, coupled with the fact that all four eyewitnesses admitted they had not seen anyone from the accused's house, creates serious doubt regarding the presence of the applicant at the place of incident.In this regard, it is important to note that the absence of the accused from his residence does not, in any manner, undermine the prosecution's case, especially when four eyewitnesses have categorically stated that they saw him at the scene of the offence inflicting injury to the deceased. Mere absence from one's home does not establish an alibi. An alibi must be proved by the defence through cogent and reliable evidence. Furthermore, this argument is self- defeating, as the defence has put questions to the Investigating Officer regarding the injuries sustained by the accused in the very incidence, thereby confirming his presence at the place of incident. Hence, on this count also the argument of the Accused fails.
5.16 Before parting with this judgment, it is pertinent to note the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1736/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Punjab vs. Karnail Singh, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 271 , wherein, at paragraph 12, the Court held that the prosecution is not required to meet every hypothesis put forward by the accused. Such hypothesis must arise from the evidence on record. The Court observed that if a case is presented perfectly, it is often argued to be artificial; and if there are minor flaws--inevitable due to human fallibility--it is argued to be a doubtful story. The principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to ensure that no innocent person is punished; a judge equally presides to ensure that no guilty person escapes justice. Both are essential public duties.
5.17 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and upon careful analysis of both the documentary and ocular evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, Palanpur, dated 31.03.2016 in Sessions Case No. 41/2013, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is hereby upheld, and the present Appeal stands rejected.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (P. M. RAVAL, J) MMP Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:07:13 IST 2025