Gujarat High Court
Bhuval Chhedilal Saroj(Pasipasvan) vs State Of Gujarat on 29 July, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1183 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHUVAL CHHEDILAL SAROJ(PASIPASVAN)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VINAY VISHEN, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The appellant is before this Court under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.2.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.38 of 2015 by the Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari convicting the appellant accused under section 302 of Indian Penal Code by imposing sentence of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo further two years rigorous imprisonment and also sentenced him under section 135 of Gujarat Police Act for six months and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further one month rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows :
2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.10.2014, the complainant Shakir Mahammad Jamati who is the neighbour of the accused was called by his wife to immediately come to the residence as she had seen from the window of the neighbour i.e. accused's house that there is blood on the floor and that house is locked, after which the complainant informed the owner of the shop where he was working and where the accused was also working and Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined the police was called; thereafter, the door was broken opened and dead body of the accused's wife was found on the floor and blood was also oozing out. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the FIR came to be registered before the Chikhli Police Station being CR No.I - 169 of 2014. 2.2 After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.43 of 2015. Since the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the same was committed before the learned Sessions Court and was registered as Sessions Case No.38 of 2015.
2.3 Vide Exh.12, the charge was framed against the accused. Vide Exh.13 plea of the accused was recorded and having denied the charges, the trial was conducted wherein the prosecution relied upon the following witnesses and documentary evidences.
ORAL EVIDENCES :
Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined Witness Name of witnesses Exh.
No. 1 Witness - Mustufa Umarbhai Sumra (Boss of 14 accused) 2 Dr.Arun Baburao Sonvane (Doctor who examined 19 the dead body) 3 Shakir Mahammad Muslim (Complainant - 22 Neighbour) 4 Panch - Mahammad Ilyas Tajmahammad Khan 24 (Panchnama of scene of offence and panchnama of physical verification of accused) 5 Panch - Zarina Shakir Malik (Inquest Panchnama) 41 6 Investigating Officer - Mahendrasinh Amarsinh Kher 45 (Police Inspector) 7 Executive Magistrate - Rajeshbhai Chhotubhai 61 Patel (who prepared the Inquest) 8 Investigating Officer - Dakshesh Bhikhubhai Patel 63 (C.P.I.) 9 Witness - Harishbhai Naginbhai Mistry (Landlord of 72 the house where the accused was residing on rent) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES :
Sr. Details of Document Exh.
No.
1 Postmortem Report. 20
2 Certificate showing cause of death 21
3 Complaint 23
4 Panchnama of scene of offence 25
5 Panchnama of physical verification / arrest of the 26
accused.
6 Slip containing the signatures of the panchas 27 to
39
7 Panchnama for production of clothes of deceased 40
8 Inquest Panchnama 42
9 Letter regarding map of the place of offence 44
10 Yadi for carrying out P.M. of dead body 46
11 Report for visit of place of offence 47
12 Letter written for issuing certificate of examination of 48
body
13 Medico Legal Certificate of accused 49
Page 4 of 24
Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
14 Yadi written for sending of sample to FSL 50
15 Yadi for name and address of the accused 51
16 Letter written to the Deputy Director, Surat 52
17 Dispatch note 53
18 Certificate regarding authority 54
19 Letter for muddamal 55
20 Letter written for drawing map 56
21 Copy of abstract of station diary 58
22 Yadi for filling up Inquest 62
23 Report of FSL 64
24 Forwarding letter 65
25 Biological report 66
26 Serological report 67
27 Notification 68
2.4 Vide Exh.69, the witnesses which were not
examined came to be dropped, whereas vide Exh.70, the prosecution filed the closing purshis. At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate Mr.M.R.Pande appearing for Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined the appellant accused would contend that :
(a) The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.
(b) There are no eye witnesses in the present case.
(c) That entire chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the accused is not established.
(d) That the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant only relying upon section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(e) That the learned trial Court also materially erred in not considering the deposition of PW 1 - Mustufa Umarbhai Sumra at Exh.14, who is the owner of the shop where the accused was working, who has not supported the case of the prosecution and has also deposed to the effect that the accused had already informed him that he was going to Mumbai for sharpening of tyre cutting knife (Rapi) Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined and also taken money from this witness.
(f) That learned trial Judge has failed to consider the factum that no one even heard the noise of brutal murder, more particularly, the complainant and his wife who are neighbours have deposed on oath.
(g) That learned trial Judge has failed to consider that the complainant has not seen the commission of offence and has no personal knowledge and has also not deposed to the effect that he has seen last with the accused's deceased wife.
(h) That except the evidence of neighbouring witnesses who have deposed in such a manner which does not take the case of the prosecution any further. (I) That learned trial Court ought to have granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. However, by passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined has committed grave and serious error both on facts and law and has argued to allow the appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned APP Mr.Vinay Vishan has argued that on going through the deposition of the complainant who is neighbour i.e. Shakir Mahammad at Exh.22 along with the deposition of Zarina Shakir Malik at Exh.41 and that of the Investigating Officer coupled with the fact that only accused, his wife alone were staying at the residence and in such circumstances, learned trial Court relying upon section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has rightly convicted the appellant since he has failed to discharge onus with regard to the circumstances within his knowledge. It is argued that there is no misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence by the learned trial Court and therefore, learned trial Court has correctly passed the judgment of conviction. Thus, it is argued that no interference is required at the hands of this Court and the appeal is required to be rejected.
Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined
6. We have perused the Record and Proceedings of the case and have also given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties.
7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that it is an admitted fact that entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness and that there is no CDR report placed on record.
8. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the principles governing the circumstantial evidences as summarized by the Honourable Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 which are to be proved by the prosecution, as under :
(i) That chain of evidence is complete;
(ii) Circumstances relied upon by prosecution should be conclusive in nature;
(iii) Fact established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused; Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined
(iv) Circumstances relied upon should only be consistent with the guilt of the accused;
(v) Circumstances relied upon should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
Considering the aforesaid principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, this Court now has to decide on the anvil of the depositions of the witnesses as to whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, more particularly, by completing the chain of circumstances pointing finger of guilt towards the accused or not ?
9. PW 1 - Mustufa Umarbhai Sumra has been examined at Exh.14 who is the owner of the shop where the accused was serving has no personal knowledge with regard to the incident and thus, he is not an eye witness. He was informed by the co-worker i.e. PW 3 - Shakir Mahammad Muslim on his mobile that the wife of the accused is lying on the floor and asked him to immediately come to the place of incident. He has further deposed that room was locked Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined from outside which was broken opened. However, he did not went inside the room. He has further deposed that by arriving at the room where the accused was residing since it was locked, he telephoned Bhuval - appellant accused and asked as to where he was, to which he was informed that he would come around 5 to 6 O'clock since he went for sharpening tyre cutting knife (Rapi). However, this witness has been declared hostile. Nothing concrete has come on record from the deposition of this witness so as to take the case of the prosecution any further despite cross examined by learned Public Prosecutor. In the cross examination by the defence, this witness has admitted that on the date of alleged offence, the accused had already informed in advance that he was going to Mumbai for sharpening tyre cutting knife (Rapi) for which money was also given and had also travelled to Mumbai.
10. PW 3 - Shakir Mahammad Muslim has been examined at Exh.22 who is co-worker and neighbour of the accused. He has deposed to the effect that the accused had Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined come to reside at the place where he was residing only 1 and 1/2 months back and has also informed that his family would also come to reside along with him. He has also deposed to the effect that after completing his daily chores, he left for his job on 7.7.2013 in the morning and at that time, his wife telephoned him and informed that to immediately come to the residence where his wife informed that window of the accused's room is opened and peeping inside, blood is found in the kitchen and one lady was lying covered by bed-sheet and could see her legs. After which, he telephoned his boss and on his arrival, he also observed and then called the police. The police had also peeped from window and then broke opened the lock, after which they went inside the room where they found that it was wife of the appellant accused - Bhuval. There were injuries on her head, neck, chest and shoulder and blood was oozing out. The witness informed the police and lodged the complaint and that accused Bhuval had fled to Mumbai. That the wife of the accused i.e. Madhuben had come on 10 th of the month in which, the incident took place and thus, the Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined complaint at Exh.23 was filed.
On cross examination of this witness, he has admitted that Bhuval - accused resides just near the room after where he resides. He also admitted that toilet and bath-room are next to Bhuval's room and all the persons who are residing nearby the room used the said toilet and bath-room. He also admitted that Bhuval - accused was to go to Mumbai for sharpening of tyre cutting knife (Rapi) for which he also informed his boss. He has also admitted that he does not know as to who has murdered Madhu (Bhuval's wife).
11. PW 4 - Mahammad Ilyas Tajmahammad Khan has been examined at Exh.24 who is the Panch of panchnama of place of incident and physical verification of the accused. This witness, after having been declared hostile, has supported the case of the prosecution on being cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. On cross examination by the defence, the witness has admitted that it Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined is so happened that the police was writing panchnama and panchas were dictating the same. He has also admitted the fact that while entering the room, dead body was not covered with any cloth or bed-sheet. He has admitted that if the police is stating that in his presence, the lock was broken, then this fact is not true. He has also admitted that on the second day, Jamadar Ashok had telephoned him and called. Thus, the factum of carrying out panchnama of place of offence and the panchnama of physical verification of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt coupled with the fact that the Investigating Officer has been examined at Exh.45 has also not proved the contents of the panchnama by deposing the factum of panchnama in his deposition.
12. PW 5 - Zarina Shakir Malik has been examined at Exh.41. However, in the cross examination, she has stated that it is true that if someone is fighting next to their room, they would be able to hear. However, on her own volition, she states that if they are sleeping in the night, they would Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined not have heard. She admitted that if someone shouted loudly, they can listen easily. She has admitted that if someone shouts for help, they may also know easily.
13. PW 7 - Rajeshbhai Chhotubhai Patel has been examined at Exh.61 who has prepared the inquest of deceased Madhuben. However, this witness is a formal witness and does not take the case of the prosecution any further except for the fact of what was seen by this witness on the dead body.
14. PW 6 - Mahendrasinh Amarsinh Kher has been examined at Exh.45 and PW 8 - Dakshesh Bhikhubhai Patel has been examined at Exh.63. Both the witnesses are the Investigating Officers of the present case. However, the work in relation to the investigation and their official duty have come on record, but the factum of proving of the panchnama as stated hereinabove is not proved. On the contrary, in the cross examination of witness - Dakshesh Patel, he has admitted that during his investigation, it came Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined to be disclosed that the accused was going to Mumbai for sharpening tyre cutting knife (Rapi). This fact was also stated to his boss Mustufa. In examination-in-chief, Mahendrasinh Kher - PW 6 another Investigating Officer has stated to the effect that when the accused was going towards Uttar Pradesh in train from Mumbai, he was arrested on the basis of the call details and tower location and the accused was also taken to the Doctor for medical treatment since he has injury on his thumb and has also obtained certificate. However, it is required to be noted that such certificate is not placed on record so as to prove that there was injury on the thumb of the accused. It is also required to be noted that injury was grievous or not is also not coming on record. It is also required to be noted that CDR details on the basis of which accused came to be apprehended from the train are also not placed on record.
15. On perusing the judgment of the learned trial Court at Exh.77, it transpires that learned trial Judge based upon the provisions of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined Act has convicted the accused on presumption that no one locked the door from the outside except husband. That tyre cutting knifes (Rapi) four in numbers were recovered from the accused and from which blood was also found that of the deceased. That tickets muddamal Nos.24 to 27 for travelling to Mumbai and thereafter from Mumbai to Gorakhpur is also proved and thus has believed the fact of accused not being present at the time of offence and was at Mumbai and has thus, by invoking the provisions of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act has convicted the appellant accused.
16. On perusal of the impugned judgment and also on perusal of the depositions of various witnesses, as stated hereinabove, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence by proving various links and the chain of evidences satisfactorily and such circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness and thus false explanation or non-explanation of circumstances within his Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined special knowledge cannot be used as additional link to convict the accused. This essential conditions ought to have been satisfied which are missing in the present case. In absence of fulfilling of these conditions only, the Court can use false explanation or false defence as additional link to lend as assurance to the Court and not otherwise. Thus, there is vital difference between in complete chain of circumstances and circumstances which after chain is complete is added to it merely to reinforce conclusion of the Court. Thus, chain of evidence is not so complete to arrive at the conclusion to hold the accused guilty and it is not so that in all human probabilities the act has been done by the accused. In absence of such missing link, reliance placed by the learned trial Judge on Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act is totally misplaced and this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned trial Court has fell in error both on facts and in law in holding the accused guilty.
17. It is required to be noted that there is no one who has seen the accused along with his wife either in the Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined intervening night or in the morning nor neighbouring witnesses who have deposed before the learned trial Court heard the noise of cries while murdering the wife of the accused by the accused himself, more particularly, when the Doctor who had performed the postmortem has stated 18 injuries on the body of the victim, more particularly, on the head and neck and on the chest and back of the deceased. It is also required to be noted that it has come on record that the accused was having injury on his thumb as stated on oath by the Investigating Officer that accused was taken for treatment, more particularly, when there is certificate of his treatment placed on record since Exh.49 is Medico Legal Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Referral Hospital, Chikhli and it discloses only bruise wound on the thumb of 2 x .5 cm which seems to be superficial injury and cannot be said to be link of committing murder of his wife. Thus, non-explanation of injury to the accused is not fatal nor could it be link in proving the case of murder by the accused. Thus, the prosecution has failed to complete the link of chain of Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined circumstances and the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused.
18. On overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the following foundational facts ought to have been established by the prosecution justifying invocation of principles enshrined under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(a) Though offence took place inside the four walls of the house, the accused has disputed his presence which is proved from the depositions of his boss as well as his neighbour who is also co-worker.
(b) That no fight between the husband and wife has been either witnessed or any one has heard shouting or seen the incident despite of inflicting several injuries to the deceased.
(c) Nothing on record has been brought by the Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined prosecution to prove that relationship between the deceased wife and accused was strained and has thus failed to prove motive of the accused to commit crime.
(d) The accused being working at the tyre shop, tyre cutting knife (Rapi) being found from his room was natural, therefore, it cannot be said that weapon is discovered at the instance of accused as per provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
In absence of these foundational facts being established in the chain of circumstances, Section 106 cannot be invoked to make out inability of the prosecution and thus, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus by proving all the elements necessary to prove the offence. At this stage, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Balveer Singh, reported in 2025 INSC 261 wherein it is observed thus :
"76. Section 106 cannot be invoked to make up Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed. To infer the guilt of the accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused."
19. It is also required to be noted that the charge against the accused is to the effect that on 12.10.2012 at about 1.00 to 1.15 in the midnight, deceased Madhu @ Kalavati Bhuval was talking on her mobile phone with someone by saying that "I love You" and also "Kissed" on the phone which the accused heard and on asking his wife as to whose phone it was and at that time the deceased Madhu got angry with the accused and that the accused got angry and murdered his wife. However, on perusal of the deposition of Shakir at Exh.22 who is the complainant and Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined the complaint is at Exh.23, not a single word to this effect is on record. Therefore, the question which remains to be answered by the prosecution as to how did the talk between the husband and wife came on record. It clearly transpires that while preparing the panchnama of physical verification of the accused after his arrest, the accused has admitted his guilt before the Police Officer which is recorded in the panchnama at Exh.26 (though not proved). The same is referred to point out infirmities in the prosecution case. Thus, it is well settled principles of law that any confession during the custody or even before the police is not admissible in evidence.
20. Thus, on overall reappreciation of the evidences both oral and documentary, this Court is of the considered view that impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari dated 21.2.2017 in Sessions Case No.38 of 2015 is required to be set aside.
21. Under the circumstances, the appeal succeeds Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined and the same is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari dated 21.2.2017 in Sessions Case No.38 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The accused be set at liberty if in jail and if not required in any other case. Record and Proceedings be sent back forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (P. M. RAVAL, J) H.M. PATHAN Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:15:42 IST 2025