Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kiritsinh @ Karansinh Sidubha Jadeja on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 354 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
=================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KIRITSINH @ KARANSINH SIDUBHA JADEJA & ORS.
=================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY) Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.07.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 109 of 2006 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, whereby, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) in the said case were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 326 r/w. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
2. Outlined facts of the prosecution case may stated as follow:
2.1 PW-1 is the complainant. He is the resident of Samrat Ashoknagar in Jamnagar city. PW-2 and PW-6 are the sons of PW-1 and PW-3 is the daughter of PW-1. They all are residing together in the house of PW-1. A1 is also the resident of the same street and he is also residing nearby the house of PW-1. A2 and A3 are the brothers of A1 and they are all residing together in one house. 2.2 It is stated that on 19.08.1995, at about 11:30 a.m., PW-1 was hearing music in his tap-recorder. At the same time, A1 was also Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined hearing the music in his tap-recorder at his house. As PW-1 was hearing the tap-recorder with high volume of sound, A1 requested him to reduce the volume of sound. But, it is stated that, he did not pay heed to his request and did not reduce the volume. Therefore, altercation took place between A1 and PW-1. So, it is stated, that A1 to A3, who are the brothers, visited the house of PW-1 armed with stick, axe and iron pipe. According to the prosecution, A1 was armed with a stick, A2 was armed with an axe and A3 was armed with an iron pipe and A1 to A3 attacked PW-1 and his sons PW-2 and PW-6 and his daughter PW-3. It is stated, that A1 beat PW-1 with stick on his head, left ear and hand and caused injuries to him and that, A1 also beat PW-6 with the stick, A2 attacked PW-2 with an axe and caused injuries to him and A3 attacked PW-3 with iron pipe and caused injuries to him.
2.3 PW-4 who is the resident of the same street and who is the their neighbour, witnessed the incident of A1 to A3 attacking the PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6 with the said weapons.
Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 2.4 On the report lodged by PW-1 immediately on the date of offence, police registered a case against the A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 326 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. 2.5 A1 to A3 were arrested on the next day i.e. 20.08.1995. On interrogation, it is stated that they disclosed before the police that they would show the place where they have hidden the weapons i.e. the stick, axe and iron pipe and that, if the police accompany them, that they would show the place where the weapons were hidden. Accordingly, they led the police to the place where they have hidden the said weapons and at the instance of A1, that the stick was recovered and at the instance of A3, that iron pipe was recovered in the presence of the mediators who are examined as PW-9 to PW-11. A panchnama was prepared at that time.
2.6 The injured PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6 were sent for medical examination. It is stated that they were admitted in the hospital but PW-1 went away from the hospital unauthorizedly against the Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined medical advice. The doctor who examined them has issued the Injury Certificates.
2.7 After completion of investigation, eventually, the police have filed the Charge-sheet against the A1 to A3 for the aforesaid offences.
2.8 In the trial Court, charges for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 326 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act were framed against the accused. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
2.9 In the trial that took place, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-12 witnesses and got marked six exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.
2.10 After conclusion of the trial, upon considering the said evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found A1 to A3 not guilty for any of the charges that are levelled Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined against them and accordingly, acquitted them of all the said charges by the impugned judgment.
2.11 Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal questioning the legality and validity of the said judgment of acquittal.
3. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State. Despite service of notice of rule on A1 to A3, they did not turn up for hearing in this appeal. None appeared on their behalf also. Therefore, as it is an old mater of the year 2013 and as it is listed under the caption, "Critically Old Matters" on the board before us for final hearing, we are not inclined to adjourn the hearing. However, to give a fair opportunity to them, we have adjourned the matter from 25.06.2025 to his date. Today also, none appeared on their behalf. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeal as per the material available on record, on merits. Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
4. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution against the accused, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the injured witnesses - PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6. As noticed supra, PW-2, PW-6 and PW-3 are the sons and daughter of PW-1. Apart from the said testimony of the injured witnesses, prosecution has also relied on the evidence of the independent witness, who is examined as PW- 4, who is the resident of the same street where both the accused and the injured witnesses have been residing and this PW-4 is their neighbour. Prosecution has also relied on the evidence of mediators examined as PW-9 to PW-11 in proof of recovery of the two weapons i.e. the stick and the iron pipe, at the instance of A1 and A2.
4.1 While appreciating the said evidence on record, at the very outset, it is relevant to note that PW-4, who is the independent witness, turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, her evidence is not of any avail to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused. Similarly, the mediators relating to recovery of weapons in this case, Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined examined as PW-9 to PW-11, also turned hostile and they also did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the fact that A1 to A3 made a disclosure statement regarding the place where they have hidden the weapons and led the police and mediators to the said place and at the instance of A1 and A3, the stick and the iron pipe respectively, were recovered, is not proved in this case. 4.2 The other weapon i.e. the axe, said to have been used by A2, is not at all recovered in this case. Further, as can be seen from the evidence of the injured witnesses, they completely eliminated the presence of A3 at the scene of offence and they did not state anything regarding complicity of A3 in committing the said offence or causing injuries to PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6. Therefore, it is evident that A3 was falsely implicated in this case, initially at the time of lodging the FIR. So, only the case against the A1 and A2 is required to be considered to ascertain whether they attacked the PW- 1 to PW-3 and PW-6 and caused any injury to them or not. Although, PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6 spoke against them in their evidence, a close scrutiny of the said evidence clearly reveals that Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined their evidence suffers from glaring inconsistencies. The weapons said to have been used by A1 and A2 in causing the injuries varies and differs from witness to witness of these injured witnesses. One says that A1 has used the stick and the other says that A1 has used iron pipe and similarly, one says that A2 has used axe, which is not recovered in this case, and the other says that A2 has used the stick. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses regarding the actual weapons said to have been used by A1 and A2 in causing the injuries to them which makes the testimony given by them against the A1 and A2 doubtful. So, when there is glaring inconsistency in their evidence regarding the weapons that are used by A1 and A2, it is not safe to place complete reliance on their testimony for the purpose of arriving at any definite conclusion regarding the complicity of A1 and A2 also in commission of the said offence against them. The fact that the said witnesses have completely eliminated the presence of A3 and the false implication of A3, throws any amount of doubt regarding the veracity of the version of the prosecution even regarding causing injuries to PW-1 to PW-3 by A1 and A2. Though, PW-6 is also shown as an injured Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined witness, as per the medical evidence on record, he did not sustain any injury. This is another ground which makes the prosecution case doubtful. Thus, the case of the prosecution suffers from several fatal legal infirmities and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not of any sterling worth so as to arrive at any definite conclusion that A1 and A2 have attacked the PW-1 to PW-3 and caused injuries to them. At any rate, as rightly held by the trial Court, the evidence emanating from the record throws any amount of doubt on the prosecution version and the case against the accused is not proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
4.3 In a criminal trial, the cardinal principle of law is proof beyond reasonable doubt and the accusation made against the accused as per the charges levelled against them is to be proved and established with strict legal evidence, beyond any doubt. Such standard of proof is lacking in this case as per above discussion. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused after undertaking thorough assay of the evidence on record. So, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is based on proper Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined appreciation of evidence on record and it does not suffer from any patent illegality warranting interference in this appeal. 4.4 After considering the evidence on record and upon reappraisal of the same, we also found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not of any sterling worth and it bristles from fatal legal infirmities and that it is not safe to place reliance on the same. Therefore, we fully concur with the findings recorded by the trial Court. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it calls for no interference in this appeal. So, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.
5. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. R&P be returned to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
[ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ] [ D. M. Vyas, J. ] hiren/18tss9725 Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:03 IST 2025