Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Pareshbhai Sankabhai Panchal on 7 November, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/993/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 993 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PARESHBHAI SANKABHAI PANCHAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JV JAPEE(358) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 07/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURBLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. This acquittal appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.', in short) judgment and order dated 22.02.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Sessions Case no. 170/2003 wherein, the respondents - Original Accused no.1 Pareshbhai Sankabhai Panchal came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short). At the end of the trial, the trial Court acquitted the respondent from all the charges.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:35:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/993/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined
2. The facts and circumstances, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
2.1 The respondent accused Paresh Panchal and injured Kandarpsinh Vaghela (PW-4) were friends and used to play cricket together at their village. On 22.1.2003, fight arose between them on account of cricket match. In the evening, both came together at their village Agayal. They were seated on bench nearby the house of the injured. At that time, suddenly the respondent accused gave a axe blow on the head of the PW-4 Kandarp Vaghela and the said blow was given at the back side of the head of the injured. The injured fell on the road and due to hue and cry, the accused ran away. The neighbour Rajeshbhai Soni came to the rescue and after seeing the situation he took out the axe from the head of the injured.
The injured PW-4 was taken to Civil Hospital Himmatnagar and then shifted to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, where he was operated for the fracture injuries. The FIR came to be lodged against the respondent-accused and the same came to be registered with Gambhoi Police Station being C.R.No.10 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent-accused was arrested and at his instance, the recovery panchnama being drawn. The investigating officer-PW14 had recorded the statement of the witnesses, drew the panchnama of place of incident, collected the necessary samples from the place of incident for chemical analysis purpose, collected the blood samples, seized the clothes of the injured, send the seized articles to the FSL and upon receiving the report thereof, the charge sheet came to be Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:35:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/993/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Himmatnagar and the same being registered as Sessions Case No.170 of 2003.
3. On the basis of material on record, the trial Court framed the charge against the respondents. The respondents did not admit the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. In the course of trial, the prosecution adduced the following oral evidence as well as documentary evidence in support of its case:
Oral evidence PW 1 - Exh.12 Dr. Mustak Ahmed Gulam Rasool Sheikh PW 2 - Exh.19 Dr. Bharatkumar Kalidas Solanki PW 3 - Exh.22 Ashwinkumar Hasmukhlal Soni PW 4 - Exh.23 Kandarpsinh Jivatsinh Vaghela PW 5 - Exh.24 Jivatsinh Gambhirsinh Vaghela PW 6 - Exh.25 Bhartiben Jivatsinh Vagehla PW 7 - Exh.26 Bharatbhai Nathabhai Prajapati PW 8 - Exh.34 Razaqbhai Abdulbhai Mansuri PW 9 - Exh.35 Rajeshbhai Jethalal Soni PW 10 - Exh.36 Narayanbhai Punjabhai Patel PW 11 - Exh.42 Hiteshbhai Ramanbhai Rami PW 12 - Exh.43 Jagdevsinh Mohabatsinh Sisodia PW 13 - Exh.44 Govindbhai Jakshibhai Desai PW 14 - Exh.53 Fatehsinh Magansinh Parmar PW 15 - Exh.56 Tukaram Daga Ghangar Documentary evidence Exh.15 Ahmedabad civil hospital medical certificate of victim Exh.16 Ahmedabad civil hospital case papers of victim Exh.21 Himmatnagar civil hospital medical certificate of victim Exh.27 Panchnama of place of offence Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:35:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/993/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined Exh.28 Panchnama of clothes of victim Exh.29 Panchnama of state of body of victim Exh.37 Panchnama of state of body and clothes recovered of accused Exh.40 Panchnama of discovery under Section 27 of Axe used in offence Exh.45 Complaint Exh.46 Yadi for medical certificate of victim at himmatnagar civil hospital Exh.47 Yadi for medical certificate of victim at ahmedabad civil hospital Exh.48 Forwarding notes of articles Exh.49 Receipt of Articles FSL Exh.50 Serological report and Forwarding letter Exh.51 Yadi for map of place of offence Exh.52 Map of place of offence
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the respondent-accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the offence and he denied the incriminating circumstances put to him by the Court.
6. The trial Court after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of the evidence, did not believe the evidence of injured eye witness PW-4 mainly on the ground that the blow was given from the backside and the injured was failed to see the accused-respondent and so far as weapon axe is concerned, the learned trial Court observed that before the incident, the accused and the injured were in the company of each other and it was not the case that the weapon axe was hidden by the accused and, therefore, how the weapon came in the hand of the accused that has not been satisfactorily Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:35:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/993/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined proved by the prosecution. In such circumstances, the trial Court extended the benefit of doubt for the complicity of the accused herein and acquitted him of all charges.
7. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the State has come up with the present appeal.
8. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned APP appearing for and on behalf of the appellant-State while assailing the impugned judgment, has submitted that, the judgment of acquittal suffers from legal infirmities, perversity and fundamental error in appreciation of evidence. That PW-4 was not having any reason to falsely implicate the respondent-accused and being an injured witness, there is no reason for him to spare the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate the respondent- accused and, therefore, the evidence of injured witness should be given more weightage, unless there are grounds for rejection of his evidence. That there is no major contradiction and discrepancy in the evidence of eye witness. That learned trial Court has misread the evidence and discarded the acceptable, trustworthy and reliable evidence of PW-4. Thus, it is submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court are contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, the finding so recorded are perverse and against the fundamental principle of appreciation of evidence and in that view of the matter, the acquittal recorded is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:35:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/993/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined
9. In such circumstances as referred above, Mr.Ronak Raval, learned APP prayed that, the prosecution is able to prove the charge of attempt to murder against the accused-respondent by adducing cogent and reliable evidence and thus, there being merits in this appeal as the findings of acquittal are contrary to the evidence on record and same may be allowed and the accused be convicted and sentenced for the offence of attempt to murder.
10. On the other hand, Mr.J.V.Japee, learned counsel appearing of the accused has supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court and contended that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused herein as the injured was not having sufficient time to see that the accused herein inflicted axe blow and, so far as weapon is concerned, how it was came in the hand of the accused that fact being not satisfactorily established by the prosecution and, thus, trial Court after careful examination of sole eye witness, PW-4, has rightly came to a conclusion that the evidence of sole eye witness is not truthful and inspires confidence. Thus, therefore, it would urge that view taken by the trial Court is the possible view and the prosecution miserably failed to point out the compelling reasons warranting interference in the order and judgment of acquittal.
11. We have heard at length learned APP and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused and perused the case record and reasons of acquittal.
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:35:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/993/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined
12. The only question arise for our consideration as to whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused?
13. Before venturing into the merits of the case, we would like to refer the scope of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. while deciding an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. The Supreme Court in its various pronouncements has persistently emphasized that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases, where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The Appellate Court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the Lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in routing manner, where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.
14. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about injury sustained by PW-4 as on 22.1.2003 at about 7 p.m., when he was in company of respondent-accused, he sustained head injury possibly by the sharp cutting weapon like axe and due to said injuries, after taking primary treatment at Himmatnagar, he was referred to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, where the operation being carried out. Thus, the factum of injury and treatment thereof is not in dispute. The complainant, Ashwin Soni, did not support the case of the prosecution. The history before the doctor being disclosed by the relatives of the injured. If we peruse the testimony of the injured PW-4, it Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:35:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/993/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined transpires that at the time of the incident, due to winter season there was darkness and according to his statement, he was injured from behind and immediately fell on the ground. It is not in dispute that before the incident the accused and the injured were seated on the front portion of the house and, at that time, the axe weapon was not in his hand. It is admitted by the injured that the statement was recorded after 12 to 15 days. In such circumstances, if the respondent-accused would have carried the weapon axe then naturally it could be seen by the PW-4. Therefore, it is doubtful that the PW-4 was carrying weapon axe. The blow was given from behind. In such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the accused respondent had inflicted axe blow on the head of the injured respondent. We are conscious about the settled legal position about the value and acceptability of evidence of injured witness. The Supreme Court in its various judgments held and observed that the evidence of injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness and his presence cannot be doubted and his statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. Thus, the evidence of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
15. Bearing in mind the legal position and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though the accused was present at the place but the factum of causing injury by him with weapon axe upon the PW-4 has not been Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:35:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/993/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined proved as the evidence of injured witness, on the aspect of weapon as well as after receiving the injuries when he fell down it could be impossible for him to visualize the subsequent conduct of the accused.
16. In light of what has been noted above, the view taken by the trial Court for not accepting the evidence of injured witness PW-4 is plausible view and a testimony has been properly appreciated and while discarding the evidence the trial Court has assigned proper reasons and thus, we do not find any perversity in the findings so as to interfere. Thus, in our considered opinion, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent-accused and we are in complete agreement with the finding, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of acquittal recorded by the Court below.
17. With the observations, as aforesaid, the appeal accordingly dismissed. The registry is directed to send back the Record and Proceedings. Bail bonds, if any, are cancelled and surety is discharged.
Sd/-
(ILESH J. VORA,J) Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J) R.S. MALEK Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:35:59 IST 2025