Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Anil Narayan Puwar on 14 November, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 518 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ANIL NARAYAN PUWAR
==========================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK MEHTA APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 12.03.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra (hereinafter be referred to as "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No.292 of 1996, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused from the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as "the IPC") and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 21.10.1996 at about 10.00 am, one Radhaben d/o. Badubhai Bapubhai Nalvaya (informant) had lodged the complaint at Dahod Town Police Station inter alia stating that on 20.10.1996 at about 10.00 pm, informant along with her brother, sister-in-law and her two sisters had gone to see garba in Dahod city at different places and lastly, they reached to see the garba at Govindnagar at about 3.00 am in midnight and while they returning, the informant had informed her brother that one person was flirting towards her and in turn, her brother Rameshbhai along with his brother-in-law Hareshbhai has scolded the accused, due to which some scuffle took place between them. It is the case of the prosecution that one Hareshbhai tried to intervene in scuffle and thereupon, the accused brought out a knife and inflicted a blow in the stomach of Rameshbhai and the people intercepted and caught hold the accused, while he was fleeing away from the place of incident. The custody of the accused was handed over to the police deployed at the place of garba. It is further the case of the prosecution that the informant along with her sister-in-law and others have taken Rameshbhai to the hospital of Dr.Y. M. Bharpoda and during the course of treatment, said Rameshbhai died. Accordingly, the FIR being C.R.No.116/1996 was registered before the Dahod Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 etc of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2.1 Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the police started investigation, prepared inquest panchnma and prepared panchnama of the scene of offence, recorded the statements of various witnesses and collected the evidence in the nature of postmortem note and after preparing arrest panchnama, arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as Sessions Case No.292 of 1996.
2.2 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court vide Exhibit 12 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
P.W. No. Name of Witnesses Exhibit 1 Radhaben Badubhai Nalvaya, Complainant, 05 2 Jaykishan Hariram Medhwani, Panch Witness 07 3 Akhtar Hussain Shafirbhai Patel, Panch Witness 10 4 Anitaben Rameshhai, wife of deceased 11 5 Yashvantsinh M. Bharpoda, Doctor 12 6 Rajendrakumar K. Shrivastav, Officer 15 7 Harishbhai Chhaganbhai Soheda, Witness 17 8 Mukesh Virsing Bamaniya, Panch Witness 18 9 Bharatbhai Babubhai, Panch Witness 20 10 Amarbahadur Patiram Yadav, Panch Witness 22 11 Shantilal Bhulabhai Solamnki, S.R.P. 24 12 Lalabhai Masurbhai Damor, P.S.I. 26 13 Omprakash L. Sharma, P.S.I. 27 Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence.
Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit 1 Original complaint 06 2 Panchnama of the scene of offence 08 3 Panchnama with regard to recovery of clothes of 19 injured Ramesh 4 Arrest Panchnama 21 5 Inquest Panchnama 23 6 Yadi wrote by Dr.Bharpoda to P.S.I. 14 7 Injury certificate of the injured issued by Dr. 13 Bharpoda 8 P.M. Note of the deceased 16 9 FSL receipt with regard to receiving muddamal 29 10 Letter of sending analysis opinion 31 35 11 Analysis report 32 12 Slip of panchanama of recovery of knife 09
5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and have stated that they are innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined this Appeal. This Court on 29.09.1999 admitted the appeal and issued bailable warrant to the respondents in sum of Rs.2,000/-.
8. Heard Mr.Hardik Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State of Gujarat and Mr.P. V. Patadia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - accused at length.
9. Mr.Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant
- State of Gujarat has contended the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has contended that the trial Court has committed an error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of the concerned witnesses and has submitted that while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court has disbelieved the case of the prosecution though the respondent was caught hold on the spot, against whom, the charge was framed. He has submitted that the trial Court has ignored the evidence of the witnesses i.e. P.W. Radhaben Badubhai Nalvaya being complainant and sister of the deceased and eye witness, P.W.4 Anitaben Rameshbhai being eye witness, P.W.7 Harishbhai Chhaganbhai Soheda, being eye witness, P.W.11 Shantilal Bhulabhai Solanki, S.R.P. Police Constable and P.W.13 Omprakash L. Sharma, P.S.I. on the ground that there were major contradiction in their evidence which directly goes to the root of the matter. He has contended that the prosecution has produced the direct evidence to connect the accused for the alleged crime but the same has not been considered by the trial Court and passed the judgment and order of acquittal which is not just and proper in the eyes of law. He has contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of eye witness Anitaben Rameshbhai, who clearly deposed that she along with her sister-in-law Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined had gone to see garba and one person tried to tease her sister-in-law and, therefore, sister-in-law informed her husband Rameshbhai about the incident. He has contended that the prosecution has examined independent witnesses to prove the case and the panch witnesses are not interested witnesses. He has contended that P.W.6 Dr.Rajendrakumar Shrivastava examined at Exhibit 15 has performed the postmortem of the deceased and issued postmortem note at Exhibit 16 and supported the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that the reasons given by the trial Court are unjust, illegal and improper to the facts of the prosecution case and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. Per contra, Mr.Patadiya, learned counsel for the respondent - accused has opposed the appeal and supported the finding recorded by the trial Court and has contended that the trial Court, after appreciating the demeanor of the witnesses and recording the evidence and reasons, has found contradiction and omission which goes to the root of the matter and falsified the case and, therefore, trial Court has rightly passed the judgment and order of acquittal. He has contended that there is no any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court unless and until there is any perversity and/or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has contended that the statements of the panch witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer and examined by the prosecution are the interested and near relative of the deceased. He has contended that when the incident occurred, at that time thousands of people gathered there and as per the evidence of one of the panch witnesses, having tea stall near the place of occurrence Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined and in his evidence, he stated that every day the stall remained open during garba upto 3.30. am, the tea stall was opened on that day. He has submitted that the police has not recorded any single statements of the independent witnesses of the nearby area, who were present at the time of occurrence nor examined any independent witnesses to prove the case against respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the fact which established on record that the deceased died due to septicemia after four days i.e. after incident and during the four days, the police has not recorded dying declaration / statement of the deceased. He has submitted that though the SRPO constable has caught hold the accused and taken to the concerned Police Station and handed over the custody to the concerned Police Station as it is cognizable offence, the Investigating Officer, In-charge of the Police Station not thought it fit to lodge the FIR and waited till the informant came and disclosed the offence. He has contended that all these facts are unanswered and it is proved to be fatal by the prosecution and, therefore, after considering the evidence, the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal while giving cogent and convincing reason. He has contended that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court by this Court in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court. He has contended that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
11. We have perused the evidence recorded by the trial Court and scrutinized the documentary evidence led before the trial Court. On perusal of the materials on record, we find that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the judgment and order of acquittal Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined more particularly the fact narrated hereinabove which was not explained and answered on the side of the prosecution and thus, goes to the root of the matter and are unanswered and undisputed facts which come on record from the evidence of the witnesses and from that, the trial Court has rightly passed the judgment and order and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses. It reveals from the evidence of the witnesses that, though the deceased was alive for four days, however, the police had neither recorded the complaint nor dying declaration and/or statement of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was not in a position to state anything or fit of state of mind.
12. That concerned eye witnesses have changed the version about the place of occurrence in their evidence. As per their say, the incident had taken place just near the compound of the garba, whereas, the place of occurrence was for more than 50 feet away, which had been shown by the witnesses. Even the weapon found with bloodstain used in the commission of offence and the injury narrated by the doctor is completely contradictory and not supported the case of the prosecution. The death caused due to the septicemia, though the doctor admitted that the death of the deceased occurred on account of septicemia, however, the cause of death shown in the postmortem is different. The doctor, who performed the postmortem, in his cross-examination has stated that the deceased died due to septicemia. Considering the material on record, it appears that the three panch witnesses examined by the prosecution are the relatives of the deceased, who have supported the case of the prosecution. Though the incident took place in presence of more than thousands of people gathered there, the police has not bothered to record any Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined single statements of the concerned person nor examined any independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution and there is material contradiction with regard to handing over the case to the Investigating Officer. Considering the material and factual facts, which are relevant in nature to prove the case, were are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.
13. This Court has analysised the following facts while deciding the present appeal:-
(1) The four witnesses were present at the spot, who had caught hold the accused and handed over to P.W.11, but there was inconsistency in their evidence with regard to the place of incident. As per the say of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.7, an actual place of occurrence found 50 feet away as shown in the FIR and statements of the witnesses, meaning thereby that, the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident.
(2) P.W.4 and P.W.7 have shown the presence of Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. However, as per the say of P.W.7, he had informed about accused to P.W.13 in presence of the other witnesses, which is not supported the version of P.W.13 and he was telling completely different story.
(3) So far as the use of the weapon which was subsequently recovered by the Investigating Officer with blood stain found was used in the commission of crime because the injury found on the body of the deceased is completely contrary. The evidence of P.W.5 also suggests material contradiction to the facts narrated by P.W.1, P.W.4 Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined and P.W.7. The death caused due to the septicemia as the deceased sustained injury on 21.10.1996 at about 3.00 am and operated in the nor hours and died on 24.10.1996. During four days, neither the police has recorded the dying declaration nor recorded the statement of the deceased when he was alive and conscious and able to give statement. Looking to all these circumstances, the Court has recorded and dealt with the evidence, while considering the submissions of the prosecution and evaluating the evidence and given cogent and sufficient reason to disbelieve and discard the evidence of the witnesses.
14. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence threadbare and has not committed any error of facts and law in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. The impugned judgment and order is not perverse one and the same is sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference at the ends of this Court. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning and ultimate conclusion reached by the trial Court.
15. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos. 42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in [2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
16. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
"20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:
"42. .... (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 emphasize 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 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 Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined 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 conclusions 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.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained."
17. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No.292 of 1996 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:15:49 IST 2025