Gujarat High Court
Mohammed Tahir Abdul Hamid Ansari vs State Of Gujarat on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 06/08/2025
Pronounced On : 14/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 696 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MOHAMMED TAHIR ABDUL HAMID ANSARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR IM MUNSHI(1123) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4,5,6
MR. H K PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
1 Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State.
2 The present revision application has been preferred by the petitioner, who is the injured person, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of acquittal passed by Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 86 of 2003. By the said judgment dated 15.07.2004, all the accused persons were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Respondent No. 1 - State has been represented by the Learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel. Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 are the original accused persons. During the pendency of this revision application, Respondent No. 3, who was also one of the original accused, has expired. Accordingly, the revision application stands abated insofar as Respondent No. 3 is concerned.
3 Heard the Learned Advocate for the Petitioner - Injured and it is submitted by him that the present petitioner is injured in the incident. Further, it is submitted that the FIR came to be given by complainant, Mr. Mohammad Imran, on 28.04.2002 at Gomtipur Police Station vide first C.R. No.109 of 2002 against 3 to 4 unidentified people and in the same incident, as per the complaint, present petitioner who is a witness, has also been injured, and other person, who is the brother of the complainant, Mr. Mohammad Iliyas was also injured, and for that, FIR has been given, and subsequently, during the treatment, the other injured - Mr. Mohammad Iliyas has been died, and the post-mortem was carried out and subsequently, after investigation, the Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined chargesheet has been filed against the original accused persons, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under
Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Further, it is submitted that the prosecution has examined total 11 witnesses and so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he is the eye-witness to the incident and also suffered an injury, and he and the deceased was going on the motorcycle and assault was taken place, and so far as the present petitioner has in the evidence, before the Court, given the name of the Respondent No. 2, Kamlesh @ Pavlo Valjibhai Rathod, as an assailant of the deceased - Mr. Mohammad Iliyas. Further, it is submitted that even as per the investigation, a knife, used in the commission of the crime has been discovered, at the instance of the respondent No. 2, accused Kamlesh Kamlesh @ Pavlo Valjibhai Rathod, and as per the report of the FSL, it suggests that the cut marks found on the cloth of the deceased can be possibly by the knife, and even this aspect has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Further, it is submitted that the injured witness, the present petitioner Mohammad Tahir, has supported the case of the prosecution, and he has also identified the accused in the Court, but his evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. Further, from the evidence of the witness, who is also injured in the crime, as an eye-witness, and his evidence has a great importance and only on the basis of this evidence, Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined the involvement of the other original accused persons - 1 to 6 have been established, but this fact has also not been considered. Hence, considering this, it is submitted that the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is required to be set aside and the present respondent nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 be convicted and the revision application is required to be allowed.
4 On the other hand, Learner Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6, Ms. Rupal Patel submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is just and proper and does not require any interference, and the learned Sessions Judge has also considered every aspect in the evidence produced before the Court. Hence, also, the revision application is devoid of any merits and requires to be dismissed.
5 Learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel for the State has submitted that the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the conviction and necessary order may be passed.
6 After hearing the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the judgment passed by the learner trial Court and perusing the Record and Proceedings of the case, it is not in dispute that the present revision application has been preferred by the injured witnesses against the judgment Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined of the acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Court. In this regard, it is required to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kallu @ Masih vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"7. The circumstances in which an appellate court will interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by a trial court are reiterated in Bhim Singh V/s. State of Haryana, thus:-
"Before concluding, we would like to point out that this Court in a number of cases has held that an appellate court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to reappreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if from the same set of evidence two views are possible and if the trial court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial court is not based on any material on record, it should not merely because another conclusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court."
8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court."
7 So, from it, it appears that the law with regards to the acquittal appeal is well crystallized and normally in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it is finally culminated when case ends in the acquittal and the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence and learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re-appreciate the evidence by the appellate court. After re-appreciation, the view taken by the learned trial court was a possible view. There is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8 In the light of the above settled principle of law and considering the evidence of the prosecution, the present case in hand is concerned, so far as the incident in question took place on 28.04.2002 at about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. and as per the case of the prosecution, as the FIR came to be lodged by Mohamed Imran Gulam Kadar Shaikh when he was on his shop namely Paris Washing Company and at that time his brother namely Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Mohammad Iliyas and Mohammad Tahir were brought to his shop in a bleeding condition and it is stated in the complaint that they were taken to the Al Amin hospital and primary treatment was given and subsequently, they were taken to V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad for further treatment, where brother of the complainant Mohammad Iliyas was declared dead while the injured Mohammad Tahir was admitted in the hospital and meanwhile, he camet to know that the deceased Mohammad Iliyas and Mohammad Tahir came from Gomtipur and near Gomtipur Fuvara Circle towards Vegetable Market on Motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-01-CA-4185. At that time 4 to 5 unidentified persons have assaulted by sharp-cutting instrument and have caused injuries and this information given to the Gomtipur Police Station and FIR came to be registered against the unknown person for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act and the same was registered before the Gomtipur Police Station vide first C.R. No.109 of 2002. Further, as per the case of the prosecution, after the lodging of the FIR, the investigation has been started and on the very next day, the statement of the present petitioner - injured has been recorded and in the statement of the injured witness - present petitioner, the name of Kamlesh @ Pavlo Valjibhai Rathod - present respondent no.2 was revealed as a main assaultant and also disclosed the name of the other accused person i.e. Respondent nos.3 Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined to 6 and they have been arrested and subsequently, a charge sheet came to be filed and subsequently, the case has been committed to the learned Sessions Court and it has been given as Sessions Case No.86 of 2003.
8.1 Further, Learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge against all the accused persons under Sections 302, 307, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The accused has denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and trial was conducted before the Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.6 at Ahmedabad.
8.2 To prove the charge, prosecution has examined (1) Alkeshbhai Bapalal Patel, (2) Bhuliram Kaniram Khatiq (Marwari), (3) Moh. Yunus Gulam Kadar Shaikh, (4) Amarshin bhimshin Khant, (5) Dr. Saumil Khemchandbhai Marchant, (6) Moh. Imran Gulam Kadar Shaikh, (7) Naranbhai Mangaji Barot, (8) Noor Ahmed Gulam Husain Shaikh, (9) Dr. Prnjal Hairendrabhai Desai, (10) Moh. Tahir Abdul Hamid Ansari, (11) Virshinbhai Kalubhai Ambaliyar (Investigating Officer). It is also required to consider the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that as per the Post-mortem report and inquest panchnama, it is established that the deceased Mohammad Iliyas has suffered an injury by the sharp-edged weapon on back of his head and on his right hand, left hand and also on the chest. He suffered an Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined injury and deceased has two stab wound injuries and four injuries of CLW accordingly and the injury which has been found on the chest of the deceased is concerned and because of that, the deceased was expired and this injury was sufficient to cause the death in the natural course and the death of the deceased was a culpable homicide and it is established by the prosecution.
9 Now, so far the complaint is concerned, it is against the unidentified person and 3 to 4 unidentified persons have assaulted the present petitioner as well as deceased.
10 Now, the important witness as per the case of the prosecution who is an injured and the said witness Mohammad Tahir Abdul Hamid Ansari has been examined as PW-10 vide Exhibit-40 and as per the deposition of witnesses i.e. on 28.04.2002 at about 02:30 P.M. in the afternoon when he and the deceased were passing through Gomtipur vegetable market, 4 to 5 people have stopped them and subsequently, out of these five people, four persons have knife in their hand and thereafter, the accused Kamlesh who knows him very well, has given knife blow to the Iliyas and the other person who was also with him, has given knife blow to him and subsequently, they have been brought near the shop of the complainant i.e. Paris Washing Company and thereafter, he became unconscious and Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined subsequently, he got conscious and at that time, he was in the V.S. hospital and further stated that he and the deceased by walking, came to the Paris Washing Company and subsequently, he got unconscious and when he got conscious, he was in the Vadilal hospital and he was came to know that Iliyas has died in the incident and police has recorded the statement and he has identified the accused Kamlesh in the court and so far as he has not identified the other accused persons and said witness was cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused and in the cross examination, he has admitted that after he suffered an injury, he got unconscious after 15 minutes and before that, he has not given the name of the accused to anyone and when he got conscious, on the very next day in the hospital, his relatives were there and he also admitted that he never has an occasion to meet with the accused - Kamlesh and his statement was recorded by the police at his residence. In this regard, it is required to consider that how learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence of the said eye-witness. The learned Sessions Judge, in his judgment, recorded that the complainant, has stated before the Court in his evidence that between 2:30 P.M. to 2:45 P.M., the deceased and the present injured witness, in a bleeding condition brought to his shop and they were very much conscious and at that time, the present witness or the deceased has not given name of any of the accused or any persons who assaulted them and they have also not narrated anything Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined how they have been assaulted by any persons and as per the evidence of the Doctor, the injured Tahirbhai has been discharged from the hospital on 04.05.2002 and as per the deposition of Tahirbhai, the statement was recorded by the police at his residence. So, it means that his statement has been recorded by the police after 04.05.2002 and till then, the name of any of the accused has not been disclosed by the present witness to anyone. Further, learned Sessions Court has also considered the fact that the injured has not given the name of the accused persons who assaulted him to the complainant and only he know Kamlesh because sometimes he has seen him that he came for sitting at some place but he has no occasion to talk with him. So, further from the evidence, Vardhi has been given to A.S.I Mangalabhai and in the said Vardhi, the said information has been given to the doctor by the present injured witness and no name of accused has been given. Further, learned trial Court has also considered that the original complainant has been examined i.e. Imran Gulam Kadar Shaikh as PW-6 vide Exhibit-32. So far as he has reiterated the version of the complainant that on 28.04.2002 at about 2:30 P.M. to 2:45 P.M., his brother Mohammad Iliyas and Mohammad Tahir in bleeding condition came to the shop and thereafter, taking to the hospital where primary treatment was given subsequently, they have been referred to the hospital and during the treatment, Mohammad Iliyas died and Mohammad Tahir was admitted as a patient and some of Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined the boys of nearby residents told the complainant that on 28.04.2002, his brother and Mohammad Tahir were coming from the Bapunagar and at that time, 3 to 4 people have assaulted them and inflicted injuries to them and the complainant came to produce vide Exhibit-
33. So, learned Sessions Judge has also considered this and after appreciating the evidence that mainly the evidence of the injured witness Mohammad Tahir - the present practitioner before this Court that primary treatment was taken by the deceased and the present petitioner at Al Amin Hospital but no medical officer of hospital has been examined. Further, the father of the deceased and brother of the deceased is concerned, they have no personal knowledge of the incident neither they have seen the incident. So, only the case is rest on the deposition of the present petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge, after considering it, come to the conclusion that looking to the contradiction in the evidence of the present witness and looking to the contradiction in the deposition of the said eye-witness it does not inspire any confidence and considering this, learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the Court cannot rely upon the said eye-witness and convict the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused persons. So, considering the appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that at the time of the incident, many people were present there but no independent witness has been examined and the Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined panchas of the discovery panchnama under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has not supported the case of the prosecution and the Investigating Officer has not deposed accordingly to prove the panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Further, from the FSL report, no blood stain has been found on the weapon and the weapon has been discovered at the instance of the accused - Kamlesh has not been established by the prosecution and medical officer of the Al Amin Hospital has not been examined and has rightly come to the conclusion that looking to the deposition of the present petitioner - injured is concerned, evidence has many contradiction and it does not inspire any confidence, so, merely on the basis of the sole deposition of this witness, the accused cannot be convicted and the said findings of the learned Sessions Judge is just and proper and does not require any interference.
11 In view of the above legal settled position, learned Sessions Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Learned Sessions Judge has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is also of the considered opinion that learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charge leveled against them and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Sessions Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/696/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Court and this Court is in complete agreement to the findings and ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the acquittal, the present revision application is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
12 The present revision application is dismissed and the judgment passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 86 of 2003 dated 15.07.2004 acquitting the accused persons from the offence under Sections 302, 307, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act is hereby confirmed.
13 Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) Jaimin Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:37 IST 2025