Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Babuji Ramtuji Thakore on 6 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 695 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BABUJI RAMTUJI THAKORE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,5
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,4
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 06/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The present appeal is preferred by the State under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short "the CrPC") against the judgment and order Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined dated 31.3.1999 in Sessions Case No.47 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar acquitting the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 302, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. The facts of the present case in nutshell are as under :
2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Bhalaji - brother of the complainant along with his children was residing besides the complainant at Kolvada of Gandhinagar Taluka. It is alleged that accused No.1 -
Babuji Thakor was calling deceased Bhalaji time and again for doing his household work and was also having made him to drink liquor. It is alleged that as Bhalaji was going at the place of accused No.1 frequently, he was having sexual relations with accused No.2 - Sakuben @ Shakriben, wife of accused No.1. It is alleged that accused No.2 was visiting the place of deceased Bhalaji frequently. On Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined 23.5.1997 at about 7.00 hours in the night, the complainant and Bhavna - niece of Bhalaji were seen at Balaji's residence. When Bhavnaben was going at the Galla (pan shop) through faliya, at that time, accused No.2 - Sakuben met Bhavna near the house of deceased Bhalaji and asked Bhavnaben "Is your uncle Bhalaji is at the residence, I have a work ?" Therefore, Bhavna said "yes" and told to go at home. Thereafter, on the next day, one Ranchhodji informed the complainant Kalaji at about 7.00 hours in the morning that the dead body is lying near the pond of village. Therefore, the complainant went with him at the said place and saw the dead body of Bhalaji. There were injuries on the face with sharp edged weapon and cut the portion from head till upper side. Bhavna told Kalaji that she had talk with accused No.2. It is alleged that deceased Bhalaji and accused No.2 Shakriben went outside together and have not returned home. Therefore, the complainant inquired about accused Nos.1 and 2 but they were not found at their residence. The accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 - brothers of accused No.1 were also not found at their Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined residence. The complainant came to know that the accused murdered Bhalaji and ran away on previous night in rickshaw. The accused first went to hire the rickshaw of Shakraji Chaturji but as his rickshaw was not available, the accused ran away in another rickshaw. Thereafter, the complainant informed this incident to the Police Sub Inspector, Pethapur and accordingly, the offence was registered as I - CR No.88 of 1997 before the Pethapur Police Station.
2.2 After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was presented against the accused persons in the court of learned Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate committed the said criminal case to the learned Sessions Court.
2.3 The charge was famed against the accused at Exh.8 and read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined 2.4 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined various witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.
2.5 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements 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, acquitting the accused persons from the charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni has mainly contended as follows : Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined 4.1 That the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and the facts of the present case.
4.2 That the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts of the prosecution case, more particularly, the fact that on 23.5.1997 at about 7.00 pm Bhalaji was last seen together with accused No.2 -
Shakriben and thereafter did not return and on inquiry by the complainant at the residence of accused Nos.1 and 2, they were not found present and thereafter, the complainant went to the house of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and they were not present at their respective houses. Thus, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that after committing murder of deceased Bhalaji, all the accused persons had run away from their respective houses. 4.3 That learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that accused Jasuji and Babuji had Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined produced muddamal weapon for committing crime which is duly proved from the evidence of all the panch witnesses. 4.4 That the learned trial Judge has miserably failed in appreciating that blood group of the deceased was found on the cloth of accused Jashuji.
4.5 That the muddamal dhoka was recovered at the instance of accused Jashuji, whereas accused Babuji produced original danti in committing offence. However, this aspect has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge.
4.6 Thus, it is argued by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni that reasons given by the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused are improper, perverse and unwarranted in the facts of the present case and there is misreading of oral as well as documentary evidences which require interference at the Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined hands of this Court and requested to allow the present appeal.
5. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another Vs State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2025) 2 SCR 239 wherein the Honourable Apex Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 has observed thus :
"11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others V. State of Karnataka, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member ( B. R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus:
"38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad V. State of Bihar [ Rajesh Prasad V. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : ( SCC pp. 482-83, para 29) Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: [ Chandrappa V. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325 ], SCC p. 432, para 42) '42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appeal court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions" , "glaring mistakes" , etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusion are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.' "
40. Further, in H.D. Sundra V. State of Karnataka [ H. D. Sundra V. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748 ] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC as follows : ( SCC p. 584, para 8 ) "8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers form patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined
12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
6. Thus, on the aforestated legal prepositions, this Court has to test on the anvil of the evidence on the record as to whether the acquittal suffers from any patent perversity or that the same is based on misreading or on an omission to consider material evidence on record and that no two reasonable views are possible and only view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible on the evidence on record.
7. Thus, on the aforesaid settled principles of law, this Court has now to reappreciate the oral as well as documentary evidences placed on record by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is based on the theory of the last seen together and also on circumstantial Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined evidences. In this regard, in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Honourable Apex Court has set down the golden rule in the case based on circumstantial evidences as follows :
"(1.) 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;
(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."
8. It is also profitable to refer to the judgment reported in 2025 INSC 751 in the case of Padman Bibhar Vs State of Odisha wherein it is observed thus :
"19. The present is a case where except for the evidence of 'last seen together' there is no other incriminating material against the appellant.
20. This Court in Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan has held that evidence on 'last seen together' is a weak piece of evidence and Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined conviction only on the basis of 'last seen together' without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The following passage from the judgment in paras 12 and 15 can be profitably referred:
12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant.
15. The theory of last seen the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct.
These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588"
21. Similarly, this Court in Rambraksh @ Jalim vs. State of Chhattisgarh has reiterated above legal position in the following words in paras 12 and 13:Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined "12. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together.
Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.
13. In a similar fact situation this Court in Krishnan v. State of T.N. (2014) 12 SCC 279 held as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, paras 21-
24) "21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar (1994) Supp (2) SCC 372 this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 385, para 31) '31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.'
22. This Court in Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45 held that: (SCC p. 63, para
31)
31. The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.' It will be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together.
23. There is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR. As per prosecution story the deceased Manikandan was last seen on 4-4-2004 at Vadakkumelur Village during Panguni Uthiram Festival at Mariyamman Temple. The body of the deceased was taken from the borewell by the fire service personnel after more than seven days. There is no other positive material on record to show that the deceased was last seen together with the accused and in the intervening period of Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined seven days there was nobody in contact with the deceased.
24. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438, this Court held that in the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "last seen together" even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed."
9. At this juncture, it is also required to be noted that present case against original accused Nos.1 and 5 stand abated in view of the oral order dated 5.6.2024 based on the report received from Pethapur Police Station dated 5.6.2024. Hence, the present appeal is required to be considered qua respondent Nos.2 to 5.
10. On perusal of the deposition of Kalaji Pratapji Thakor at Exh.15 who is complainant came to know regarding illicit relationship between deceased Bhalaji and accused No.2 Shakriben. However, this witness has no personal knowledge with regard to illicit relationship between deceased Bhalaji and accused No.2 Shakriben. This witness is not an eye witness and he had seen dead Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined body of his brother Bhalaji while returning back to his residence on the information being given by one Ranchhodji that he has seen some dead body near mango tree. The witness has further deposed that Bhavna had informed him that at 7.00 O'clock in the evening accused No.2 - Shakriben had come to call Bhalaji and he did not find Bhalaji at his residence and was locked. The witness has also further deposed that on asking neighbour Shakaji, he informed that Ramtuji had come at 7.00 O'clock and asked him to accompany him with his rickshaw.
On cross examination of this witness, he has stated that no scuffle has taken place between Babuji, Shakriben and Bhalaji. The witness also admitted that when he has scolded Bhalaji for not keeping illicit relation with Shakriben, deceased Bhalaji had informed him that he had no illicit relationship with Shakriben. On considering the deposition of Vechatji who brother of the deceased and who has been examined vide Exh.17, it was informed by his brother as well as his mother that there is illicit relationship Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined between Bhalaji and Shakriben. Thus, this witness has also no personal knowledge with regard to illicit relationship between deceased Bhalaji and accused No.2 Shakriben. The witness has merely stated that Bhalaji and Shakriben had illicit relationship, however, he has no personal knowledge.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 Shakriben and deceased Bhalaji were seen together at about 7.00 O'clock. However, Kalaji has not seen deceased Bhalaji and accused No.2 Shakriben together and on the day of alleged incident, Vechatji was at Gandhinagar, whereas Bhavna who is examined at Exh.18 has stated in her deposition that she has seen Bhalaji at his residence at 7.00 O'clock. It is also stated by Bhavna in her deposition that, at that time, she also met Shakriben and she asked where is your uncle to which Bhavna replied, at his residence. Thereafter, Bhavna went towards the shop and Shakriben proceeded towards residence of Bhalaji and thereafter, while she was returning from the shop, she had Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined seen Shakriben and her uncle Bhalaji together going on towards village pond.
12. On perusal of the deposition of the Investigating Officer at Exh.37 - Balaji Visaji Rana, it transpires that the fact of Bhavna stating in her deposition that she had seen Bhalaji and Shakriben together proceeding towards the village pond is not stated in the statement before the police and it is for the first time that she has stated before the Court and thus, this material improvement goes to the root of the case and such important fact which was not stated before the police has been stated for the first time before the Court and hence, it is not believable. Thus, the prosecution's case of last seen together creates serious doubt.
13. As far as discovery panchnama of alleged weapon recovery at the instance of the accused persons is concerned, on considering the entire deposition of panch witness, more particularly, panch Rumalji Thakor which Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined has come on record that accused Jashuji had shown weapon bat from Baval tree. However, as per the panchnama, said weapon bat was found from kedona vada. Nowhere in the entire deposition, the witness has stated that Jashuji had informed in his presence that he wanted to show weapon bat with which he had hit Bhalaji nor the accused has stated as to where, he has hidden said weapon bat used in the alleged crime. Similarly, Ramtuji has merely stated that he wanted to show danti. Similarly, this panch has also not stated that the accused has hidden weapon and he wanted to show where he has kept this weapon. Thus, entire panchnama of discovery of weapon is not in accordance with the provisions of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be relied upon, more particularly, when it creates serious doubt and it is not in accordance with law.
14. It is also required to be noted that as held in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [AIR 1981 SC 1417], wherein it is held as under:
Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined "... This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:
(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate 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."
In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, this Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment and order and entire chain of circumstances is not complete so as to bring home the guilt of the accused.
15. Under the circumstances, the appeal against the respondents - accused fails and the same is rejected. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.1999 in Sessions Case No.47 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar acquitting the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 302, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/695/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined Police Act is hereby confirmed. R & P be sent back forthwith.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) (P. M. RAVAL, J) H.M. PATHAN Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 21:25:10 IST 2025