Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ramji Dahyabhai Koli on 5 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 960 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMJI DAHYABHAI KOLI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTH PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR UTPAL M PANCHAL(1075) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 05/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI)
1. The complainant State, being aggrieved by the judgement and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, in Sessions Case No. 03 of 1998 on Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined 25.06.1999, whereby, he was pleased to acquit the accused of the charges under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. Heard Mr. Tirth Pandya, learned APP for the appellant State who has taken us through the entire gamut of evidence which was rendered before the learned trial court wherein, the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused had examined as many as 9 witnesses and had submitted 27 documents. Upon completion of the oral evidence, the learned Sessions Judge had recorded the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and after hearing the learned advocates for the either sides, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to pass the order and judgement of acquittal as regards all the three accused.
3. So far as the charge in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1998 is concerned, the same was framed by the learned Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined Sessions Judge of Morbi which is at Exh. 6 wherein, it is stated that, all the three accused, who were armed with bill-hooks ('dhariyu' in vernacular), had attacked the deceased at around 2 am on 15.06.1997, and the deceased having succumbed to such injuries.
4. Mr. Pandya, learned APP has invited our attention towards the depositions of P.W. 1 - Chandubhai Khengarbhai Koli examined vide Exh. 12 who happened to be the original complainant and son of deceased and P.W. 5 - Amrutben w/o Khengarbhai Koli who had been examined vide Exh. 29 and who happened to be the wife of the deceased. Mr. Pandya, the learned APP has harped upon the fact that, both these witnesses narrated in detail as regards the occurrence of the incident and, both of them have recognised the accused rather, both of them having deposed that, they had seen the accused attack Khengarbhai with bill-hooks.
4.1 Mr. Pandya, the learned APP has also submitted Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined that, both these witnesses, the deceased Khengarbhai and the accused being close relatives, the question of not identifying the accused did not arise. Further, Mr. Pandya, the learned APP has drawn our attention towards the FSL report and, more particularly, the Serological report which is at Exh. 43, wherein, blood which was found on the weapon had matched with the blood of the deceased. Learned APP has also argued that, though the learned Sessions Judge had disbelieved the theory of there being a street light at the place of offence, the deposition of the Investigating Officer should be believed since, he had clearly stated on oath that, he had camped in the village after the incident had occurred, and had verified that by way of tapping the domestic electricity connections from the houses, the street lights were being switched on. Mr. Pandya, has urged that, the judgement rendered by the learned competent court is erroneous on both counts, i.e. factual as well as legal, which deserves to be interfered with, and is required to be quashed and set aside, and the appeal is required to be allowed, and Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined consequently, the accused should be convicted for the offence with which they were charged.
5. None on behalf of the accused is present.
6. So far as the judgement delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence which has been rendered by the prosecution in Sessions Case No. 03 of 1998 is concerned, the present case mainly rests on three counts viz. the first being the presence of street light, the second being the place of offence and the third being, the accused who were named and identified by P.W. 1 - Chandubhai Khengarbhai Koli and his mother P.W. 5 Amrutben Khengarbhai Koli. The remaining evidence or the depositions of the remaining witnesses do not require any further discussion since the entire case of the prosecution rested mainly on these three counts. 6.1 In the first instance, the learned Sessions Judge has discussed at length the evidence which had been rendered as regards the presence of electric pole which Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined was in a working condition i.e. the street light being lit up on the night of the incident. It is the case of the prosecution that, P.W. 1 - Chandubhai and P.W. 5 - Amrutben, both, had clearly seen the assailants clearly in the brightness of the street light and since the light pole was situated where the deceased was sleeping. It is fruitful to observe that, on behalf of the accused two defence witnesses were examined, namely, the Talati- cum-Mantri and the Deputy Engineer from the Gujarat Electricity Board as Defence Witness Nos. 1 & 2 vide Exhs. 48 & 52, respectively. Both these witnesses had categorically stated that, the electricity connections of the street lights of Chikhli village were severed since, the electricity usage charges were not paid by the gram panchayat. The learned APP had tried to in vain to establish before the learned Sessions Court that, the street lights were on, because of the electricity connections being tapped from the household connections, since there was not an iota of evidence to that effect on record. Of course, the Investigating Officer Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined had also tried to bring home the fact that, he had camped in the village for a few days after the incident, and having seen such a scenario where, street lights' electricity connections were being tapped from the household connections, and thereby the street lights being lit up in the village. However, it was a bald assertion devoid of any independent and cogent evidence. Hence, the prosecution was unable to prove the presence of street lights being lit up at the time of the incident and consequently, the fact that, P.W. 1 - Chandubhai and P.W. 5 - Amrutben having seen the accused committing the crime is unbelievable.
6.2 Secondly, admittedly, it is the case of the prosecution that, the deceased Khengarbhai was sleeping outside his house when the incident had occurred. Also, as per the prosecution case, all the three accused were armed with individual bill-hooks, however, only one bill- hook had been discovered. It is the case of the prosecution that, the incident had occurred just outside Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined the main door of the house of the deceased and the pole of street light being situated adjacent to where the deceased was sleeping on the fateful night, however, the panchnama at Exh. 14 speaks otherwise, wherein, the street light pole is shown at a distance of 40 feet from the house of the deceased and near the house of Mamu Jetha i.e. where the incident had actually occurred. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge had rightly observed that the place of incident had also changed, and in spite of the prosecution's endeavour and more particularly, the audacious efforts of P.W. 1 - Chandubhai and P.W.5 - Amrutben, they were unable to prove that the incident had occurred just outside their house. 6.3 It is pertinent to observe that, P.W. 1 - Chandubhai Khengarbhai Koli in his deposition, categorically states that, he did not know the accused no. 1 - Ramjibhai Dahybhai Koli. He had also admitted that, he had not seen Ramjibhai Dahybhai Koli at the time of incident. He had also not seen him after the incident, and that, Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined Ramjibhai Dahybhai Koli had not even inflicted any blow with bill-hook to his father. He had further pleaded ignorance stating that, he did not know as to why Ramjibhai Dahybhai Koli had come to the court when he i.e. P.W. 1 - Chandubhai had gone to render his deposition. Lastly, he had stated that, he had not named Ramjibhai Dahybhai Koli before the police as one of the assailants, who had attacked his father. Thus, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by rendering cogent evidence as to how accused no. 1 - Ramjibhai Dahybhai Koli was impleaded as one of the accused in the offence. However, the prosecution has remained silent. In the same breath, one Khodabhai Takhubhai was initially named as one of the co-accused. However, P.W. 1 - Chandubhai and P.W. 5 - Amrutben had subsequently admitted that, he had already died because of a heart attack i.e. he had died a natural death before the incident in question had occurred. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge had correctly observed that, the prosecution or rather P.W. 1 - Chandubhai and P.W. 5 - Amrutben had Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined falsely implicated accused no. 1 and Khodabhai Takhubhai in the offence, which they had neither committed nor in which, they were involved. The learned Sessions Judge had also observed that, when the prosecution witnesses had not deterred from implicating innocent individuals in the offence, there was all possibility that they may have implicated the accused nos. 2 & 3 also, falsely, in the offence or, for that matter, such possibility could not be ruled out. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge had rightly concluded that, the prosecution was unable to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly, had acquitted the accused.
7. It is further required to be noted that, P.W. 1 - Chandubhai Khengarbhai Koli had admitted that, after his father was injured and though he was bleeding, neither he nor his mother had even given him any primary aid or primary treatment. Also, it was stated that, he was taken for treatment at Morbi as well as Rajkot, however, the Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined Medical Officers who had treated the deceased at both the places had not been examined by the prosecution.
8. At this juncture, we may refer to some of the propositions enunciated by the Supreme Court with regard to exercise of appellate jurisdiction in acquittal appeals. In case of Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2022 (6) SCC 294, para 7 reads as under:
"7. It is well settled that:-
7.1 While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court deserves to be upturned (See Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka3, Anwar Ali and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh).
7.2 With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (See Atley v.
State of Uttar Pradesh).
7.3 If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (See Sambasivan and others v. Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined State of Kerala)."
8.1 Similarly, in the case of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and another reported in [2024] 4 S.C.R. 322, the relevant paragraphs read as under:
"6. It is true that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has to reappreciate the evidence. After re- appreciating the evidence, the first question that needs to be answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that this question has not been adverted to. Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal. The High Court has ignored the well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the 326 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports accused. After having perused the judgment, we find that the High Court has not addressed itself on the main question.Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined
7. The second error the High Court committed is found in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment. The High Court has gone to the extent of recording a finding that the appellants have failed to adduce evidence in their support, failed to examine the defence witness and failed to establish falsity of the prosecution's version. This concept of the burden of proof is entirely wrong. Unless, under the relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden. In a case where there is a statutory presumption, after the prosecution discharges initial burden, the burden of rebuttal may shift on the accused. In the absence of the statutory provisions as above, in this case, the burden was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the High Court's finding on the burden of proof is completely erroneous. It is contrary to the law of the land.
...
11. Therefore, the appeal must succeed. We set aside the judgment and order dated 14th December 2018 of the High Court and set aside the conviction of the appellants. The judgment and order dated 5th July 1997 of the Trial Court is restored. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant no.2 are cancelled. The appellant no.1 shall be forthwith set at liberty unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case."
9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate court is not required to re-write the Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined judgement or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
9.1 Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the competent court below, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
10. We have appreciated, re-appreciated and re- evaluated the evidence rendered in Sessions Case No. 03 Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/960/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined of 1998 on the touchstone of latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Considering the evidence in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly, correctly and legally appreciated the evidence which was rendered before him, pursuant to which, he had acquitted the accused from the charges framed against them. Thus, the said judgement does not require any interference.
11. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed. R & P, if any called for, to be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI, J) (UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) DIVYA Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:30:25 IST 2025