Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Champaben W/O. Mangalabhai Talar on 25 July, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 327 of 2000
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHAMPABEN W/O. MANGALABHAI TALAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5
MR PM DAVE(263) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI)
1. Present appeal is abated qua accused no.3 and therefore we have considered the present appeal qua respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 only.
2. Heard Mr.Krutik Parikh the learned APP for the appellant and Mr.Ashish Dagli the learned advocate Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined appearing for the respondent-accused nos.1, 2 and 4 at length.
3. The present appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No.14 of 1996 dated 05.07.1999, for the offenses punishable under Sections 498, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The case of the prosecution is that, on 04.08.1995, at 6:30 PM, at Village Bhulindra, Taluka:Shahera, accused no.4-Narwatbhai Mangalabhai Talar - the husband, accused number-3 - Mangalabhai Lakhabhai Talar - the father-in-law, accused number-1 - Champaben Mangalabhai Talar - the mother-in-law, accused number-2 - Savitaben Mangalabhai Talar - the sister-in-law of the deceased, Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined and accused no.5-Andarabhai Jesingbhai Pagi, were torturing Sakriben, and with common intention to cause death of the deceased Sakriben and with such knowledge that she would die, inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased Sakriben, which were sufficient to cause her death and thus, the accused committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, with the intention of destroying the evidence of the said murder, all the accused hanged the body of Sakriben in the cattle- pen in the house of the accused Nos.1 to 4, thereby, having tried to destroy the evidence of such murder and committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. On the aforesaid facts, the complaint was filed against the accused by PSI below Exh.39, and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.
5. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Court, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the respondent-accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
6. Upon conclusion of oral evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court recorded further statements of accused as provided u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, the accused denied their involvement in the offence, and stated that, false case had been filed against them. After hearing both the sides and after appreciating evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused herein, for the offenses punishable under Sections 498, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Mr.Krutik Parikh the learned APP for the appellant herein submitted that, impugned judgement is required to be interfered with mainly on the ground Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined that it is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. That, the competent Court has erred in not considering the case of the prosecution for offense punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
7.1 Mr.Parikh submitted that the competent Court has disregarded the PM note, wherein, it is not in dispute that, the deceased was injured and injury no.1 was postmortem, whereas, injury no.2 was antemorterm, which resulted into the death of the deceased. It is submitted that, the depositions of witnesses were given more weightage than the PM note. The deposition of the doctor is also not considered in its true spirit and in view thereof, the issue no.1 is erroneously decided in negative. 7.2 It is further submitted by Mr.Parikh that, once the issue no.1 itself is erroneously decided, the rest of the order/judgement is such that, the same also is Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined required to be interfered with.
7.3 Mr.Parikh has further relied on the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the documents produced on record to substantiate his submissions and submitted that, the present appeal is required to be allowed. It is submitted that, once the Court comes to the conclusion that the death was homicidal, under such circumstances, the entire judgement falls, and the same should be quashed and set aside.
8. Mr.Ashish Dagli the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-accused supported the impugned judgement rendered by the competent Court. He relied on the deposition of PW-1 - Danabhai Kalubhai, who was the panch witness, having admitted in his cross-examination that the relation between deceased-Sakriben and her husband accused No.4- Narwatbhai were cordial.
8.1 Reliance was also placed by Mr.Dagli on the Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined deposition of PW-2, Dr. Krishnavallav Anokhilal Raval
- Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Sehra. Relying on his deposition below Exh.27, wherein, it is submitted by this doctor that, the cause of death of deceased was injury on head. Reliance was also placed on the cross examination of this doctor, wherein, he has admitted that, if the rope by which a person is hanging is cut, resulting in his fall, he would sustain the injuries mentioned in para-17 of the PM note. Mr.Dagli placed reliance on the PM report prepared by the said doctor, which is also on record at Exh.29, wherein, it is stated that, the cause of death is neurogenic shock due to head injury. 8.2 Mr.Dagli further relied on the deposition of the complainant- PW-3 - Kodarbhai, father of deceased Sakriben having deposed below Exh.37, and he having filed the complaint below Exh.38 on 07.08.1995, and submitted that the complainant Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined himself in his deposition has stated the reason of filing complaint was suspicion and upon he having been told by his son, he had lodged the complaint after three days of the incident. It is submitted that, in the cross-examination the said witness, he had admitted that, the relations between his daughter Sakriben and her husband Narwatbhai were cordial. 8.3 Reliance is also placed on the depositions of PW-4, deceased's mother-Daliaben having deposed below Exh.42, PW-5 Koyabhai -the uncle of the deceased having deposed below Exh.43, PW-10 - Nanabhai Kodarbhai - brother of the deceased Sakriben deposed below Exh.54. Placing reliance on the aforesaid depositions as referred to herein above, it is substantiated that though the aforesaid witnesses are that of the prosecution, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have deposed that, the relation between deceased Sakriben and her Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined husband were cordial and there were no instances on record to show any harassment meted out to the deceased, to implicate the accused of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 8.4 Mr.Dagli further placed reliance on the deposition of PW-11 - PSI-Dilawarsinh having deposed below Exh.57, who being an independent witness, in his cross-examination admitted that, during the course of investigation undertaken by him, it was not known to him that the cause of death of the deceased was murder. It is also submitted that, the inquest panchnama at Exh.21, was drawn in the presence of panch witnesses on 04.08.1995 between 14:30 to 15:30 hours i.e. on the day, when the alleged incident had occurred. It is submitted that, the panch witness PW-7 Danabhai Kalubhai had deposed below Exh.45 that, there were cordial relations between the deceased and her husband, and they were having Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined healthy married life. In his deposition, there is no evidence with regard to any cruelty or torture inflicted upon the deceased.
8.5 Mr.Dagli submitted that, in absence of any motive and since the relations between the deceased and her husband being cordial and good, and the complainant i.e. the father of the deceased also being present at the matrimonial home of his daughter when the unfortunate incident had occurred, the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
8.6 Mr.Dagli relied on the following decisions:
(I) Decision rendered by this Court in case of Odhabhai S/o. Dahyabhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2022 (II) Decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined in case of Mohd. Akhtar @ Kari & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos.407-408 of 2009 (III) Decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1167 of 2018 8.7 Mr.Dagli would also place on record written submissions and submitted that, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that burden of proof lies upon the prosecution and the standard required is to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused throughout the trial and gains greater strength, post acquittal. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1984 AIR 1622. It is Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined submitted that, the competent Court in its considered wisdom correctly applied the said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the facts of the present case.
8.8 Reliance is also placed on in case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein, Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed that, if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate Court or in simple words, it can be interpreted that "an appellate Court should not reverse an acquittal merely because another view is possible" and in the present case, no such perversity or illegality is demonstrated by the prosecution, as regards the judgement of acquittal passed by the competent Court.
8.9 Placing reliance on the above submissions, Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Mr.Dagli lastly submitted that, the appeal is required to be dismissed.
9. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, the following emerge:
9.1 It is the case of the prosecution that between 10:00 p.m. on 03.08.1995 and 6:30 a.m. on 04.08.1995, the accused no.4 Narwatbhai Manglabhai i.e. husband of the deceased-Sakriben, Accused no.3-
father-in-law - Manglabhai Lakhabhai Talar, Accused no.1-mother-in-law - Champaben, accused no.2- Savitaben - sister-in-law, of the deceased Sakriben who being close relatives, committed a crime under Section 498 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by mentally and physically torturing the deceased - Sakriben. All the accused, with common intention to kill deceased - Sakriben, caused injuries to her, which were sufficient to hold accused responsible for crime punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined the Indian Penal Code. The accused no.4 killed Sakriben by injuring her on head and with intention of destroying the evidence of murder, hung her in the cattle-pen of the house of the accused nos.1 to 4 and accused no.3-Mangalabhai Lakhabhai, despite knowing that Sakriben was murdered, with an intention of saving the accused from punishment, committed the offense of giving false information of accidental death to the police and thereby committed offense under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9.2 In the aforesaid set of facts, we have considered the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidences on record and considered the same with the impugned judgement rendered by the learned Sessions Court.
9.3 It emerges from the record that, accused no.3 - the father in law of the deceased Sakriben, upon the Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined aforesaid incident having occurred, informed at police station and a complaint under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code came to be filed below Exh.30. Upon perusal of the same, it emerges that, it is a declaration of accidental death. It is narrated by the said accused no.3 that, at about 7:00 a.m. on 04.08.1995, deceased Sakriben had gone for sweeping the corridor. The accused no.1 having noticed that she did not return, went outside only to find Sakriben hanging by rope. She immediately informed accused no.3. The accused no.3 informed his uncle's son Andarabhai - accused no.5, about the incident and he reached where the alleged incident had occurred. Deceased's father Kodrabhai was also present at the place of incident. However, he left thereafter. It is also stated by the accused no.3 that Manishaben - the daughter of deceased, was suffering from diarrhea since seven days. The deceased was put to harassment during night and therefore, she Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined used to beat Manishaben. The accused no.3 asked the deceased not to beat her daughter, which the deceased did not like, she felt bad and it may be due to the said reason, she had taken the aforesaid extreme step.
9.4 Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panchmahal, Godhra, drew the inquest panchnama which is on record below Exh.21 in presence of three panchas on even date i.e. 04.08.1995 between 14:30 to 15:30, wherein it was opined that, the cause of death of the deceased was due to hanging and further opined to conduct postmortem to know the exact cause of death. It is further stated that, no significant marks were found on the body of the deceased and that the police did not seize anything. PW-1 Danabhai was examined below Exh.23 and he had supported the inquest panchnama. In his cross-examination, he had deposed that deceased Sakriben and her husband Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined had a healthy relationship. Deceased's father was also present at the place of incident and then he had left.
9.5 We have perused the deposition of Dr.Krishnavallav, PW-2 having deposed below Exh.27, who conducted the postmortem, wherein, it was deposed that, there were two injuries on the deceased. One, by rope, which is postmortem and the other, which was on the left side of head, wherein, there was a mark of 5 x 4 cms. The cause of death was due to injury on head by hitting by a blunt weapon. In the cross-examination, it was admitted that it could be by shock or fear of dying and it can also be one of the reasons to cause the death. The postmortem report is on record below Exh.29, which corroborates the cause of death being neurogenic shock due to head injury. The aforesaid is to be considered harmoniously with the complaint Exh.13 Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined lodged by Kodarbhai, father of deceased Sakriben, having deposed as PW-3, below Exh.37. That, the complaint was filed upon suspicion, after the son of the complainant having told him that, they had to file the complaint. In his cross-examination also it is deposed that, the relation between the deceased Sakriben and her husband were cordial, and the aforesaid also emerges from the depositions of the other prosecution witnesses that, both the families had cordial relations and the complainant himself was at his daughter's residence, to help them. However, as held by the competent Court, the complaint appears to be contrary to the record, wherein, it is alleged that the accused being the family members, together harassed the deceased Sakriben, resulting in commission of offense under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code.
9.6 In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined prove that there was any harassment to deceased Sakriben. In fact, though the evidence of PW-4 the mother Daliyaben Kodarbhai is hearsay, it is deposed by her that though she left from the place of incident after seeing the body of her daughter deceased- Sakriben, she did not notice any significant marks on the body.
9.7 It emerges from the record that, present case is that of circumstantial evidence, wherein, the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of evidence to hold the respondent/accused guilty of charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt.
9.8 Considering the medical evidence, the death of the deceased was a result of the blow on head, which, the prosecution had failed to establish either through direct or circumstantial evidence. The prosecution Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined was also unable to prove the weapon itself, the blow of which resulted in death of Sakriben and also, as to who possessed such weapon. No evidence is led to the aforesaid effect.
10. At this stage, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in [2024] 3 SCC
481. Relevant paragraphs of the judgement read as under:
"16. Undoubtedly, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra1, wherein this Court held thus:
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court (1984) 4 SCC 116=1984 INSC 121 is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] . This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
"12. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] "19. ... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
17. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused 'must be' and not merely 'may be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved'. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.
18. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1387 has held as under:
"7. This Court in the case of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) 3 SCC 481 held that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon even bearing the same blood group of the victim would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder.
...
9. Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that in an appeal against acquittal, interference can only be made if the only possible view based on the evidence points to the guilt of the accused and rules out his innocence. In the present case, we are duly satisfied that the prosecution failed to lead clinching evidence Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined to bring home the charges. The only possible view is the one taken by the High Court, i.e., the innocence of the accused."
12. For the reasons as rendered herein above and in the facts of the present case as well as in light of the position of law as referred to hereinabove, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No.14 of 1996 dated 05.07.1999.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. R & P, if any called for, to be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) (UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:24:45 IST 2025