Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Lalubhai Alias Lalo Laxmanbhairabari on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 161 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LALUBHAI ALIAS LALO LAXMANBHAIRABARI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT)
1. The present Appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 06.10.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.24, Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Session Case No.371 of 1998, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him under sections 302 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. The short facts of the prosecution case read as under:-
2.1 As per the case of the prosecution, Dineshbhai Ravjibhai Bariya (hereinafter referred to as "the victim") sustained fatal injuries due to knife blow inflicted upon him by accused Lalubhai alias Lalo Laxmanbhai Rabari on 12.4.1998 at about 8.30 p.m.. On receiving such injuries, the victim was brought to L.G.Hospital in the midnight around 11.30 pm but found conscious. After performing treatment upon the victim, he took discharge against the medical advice on 27.4.1998 from the hospital. Further, due to complication arose due to injuries sustained, again he was hospitalized on 02.5.1998, but then after also, he went Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined away from the hospital and later on reported died on 09.5.1998. His dead body was initially buried but when the police came to be informed about such death, police appears to have exhumed the dead body, thereafter on 15.5.1998 postmortem (P.M.) performed on victim's dead body.
2.2 It is also required to be observed here that when the victim brought in L.G.Hospital for the first time, the police official i.e. Kishorsinh Ramsinh Parmar, Head Constable took history of his sustaining injuries which were written down in his Vardhi sent to Amraiwadi Police Station.
As per Vardhi, it was noted down that victim himself informed that due to scuffle taken place between the victim and the accused in relation to some money matter at his residence at 11:00 p.m. on 12.04.1998, the accused inflicted blow of knife on his abdomen part. 2.3 Whereas the victim himself registered FIR on the next day i.e. 13.4.1998, wherein reported the incident of Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined having sustained injuries on 12.4.1998 taken place at around at 8.30 p.m. in the presence of his friend Raju Marwadi near Pan Galla.
3. Thus, statement of victim as recorded in Vardhi and FIR differs so far as time & place of incident of crime. Nonetheless, after recording the statements of various witnesses and on completion of investigation, the accused charge sheeted and ultimately, the case was committed to the Trial Court for trial to be conducted for the offences of sections 302 and 294(b) of IPC.
3.1 To bring home the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution led the following oral as well as documentary evidences which reads as under. ORAL EVIDENCES :
PW 1 Ravjibhai Chhanabhai, father of the deceased, at Exh.12 PW 2 Govindbhai Bhikhabhai Thakor, pancha, at Exh.13 PW 3 Kishorsinh Ramsinh Parmar, Head Constable, Exh.15 PW 4 Chimanlal Ramabhai Parmar, PSI at Exh.17 PW 5 Rajendrasinh alia Raju Achalsinh Marwadi (Rajput), Rickshaw driver at Exh.20 Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined PW 6 Dr. Mrs.Dharmilaben Gunvantbhai Shah, RMO, LG Hospital Exh.21 PW 7 Lakhabhai Parbatbhai Gaadhe, PSI (Reader Police Inspector, Exh.23) PW 8 Dr.Laljibhai Khimjibhai Rathod, Exh.25 (P.M.Doctor) PW 9 Ahmedbhai Bapubhai Qureshi, PI, Exh.26 PW 6 (Recall) Dr.Dharmilaben G.Shah, RMO, LG Hospital, Exh.33 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES :
1 FIR filed by deceased Dinesh Exh.24 2 Copy of Vardhi received from LG Hospital, Exh.18. 3 Panchnama of place of offence Exh.8 4 Panchnama of discovery of weapon, Exh.27 5 Medical certificate of deceased Dinesh Exh.35 6 P.M. Note of the deceased, Exh.10 7 Various medical case papers of LG Hospital Exh.37 and 8 Inquest Panchnama, Exh.9 3.2 After appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution and hearing learned advocates for the respective parties, learned trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the respondent accused having found several irregularities and short-comings in the evidence of the prosecution, ultimately, acquitted the respondent accused by giving him benefit of doubt.Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the prosecution has filed the present Criminal Appeal.
5. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Shruti Pathak for the appellant State at length who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses.
Submissions of the appellant :
6. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak would submit that learned Trial Court has committed serious error in law when acquitted the respondent accused from the charge of murder i.e. section 302 of IPC. It is submitted that the victim himself gave his statement to the police as well as registered the FIR against the respondent accused for commission of crime. So, in these circumstances, there was no reason to acquit the respondent accused from such Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined serious charge.
6.1 Learned APP would submit that the prosecution examined police official who took Vardhi and also investigated crime in question and nothing adverse is proved by the respondent accused during their cross examination. It is submitted that as per the case papers and postmortem report (P.M. report), it is self-sufficient that cause of death has direct nexus with the knife blow inflicted by the respondent accused. Thus, the respondent accused could not have been acquitted from the charges. 6.2 Learned APP would further submit that as per the settled legal position of law when the victim who sustained serious injuries, reported such commission of crime during his life time in the form of FIR or otherwise, the same is required to be considered as his dying declaration. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved that due to infection arising out of injuries sustained by the victim, he died thereby, FIR / Vardhi registered by victim Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined during his conscious state of mind, ought to have been considered as his dying declaration. Having not considered such aspect, learned trial Court has committed serious error in law.
6.3 Learned APP would further submit that merely because an eye witness to the incident i.e. Rajendrasinh Achalsinh Marwadi (PW 5) has not supported the case of the prosecution, other evidences which were available on record could not have been ignored by learned trial Court. It is submitted that incident and injuries whereby the victim sustained injuries of knife blow by the respondent accused cannot be disputed, inasmuch as such, fact came from the mouth of the victim himself before he died. 6.4 Making the above submissions, learned APP would humbly request this Court to allow the appeal.
7. Though served, none appears for the respondent accused. However, after scanning the entire evidence and Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined going through the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial Court, the view which we are going to take in this appeal, we do not feel so to hear the respondent accused.
8. Before adverting to the issue germane in the appeal, scope and interference in the appeal by this Court that too in acquittal appeal filed by the State under section 378 of CrPC needs to be taken note of. In a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149, wherein the Honourable Apex Court taking note of its previous decisions, held thus:
"39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: -
"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 case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined " 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 appellate 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 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 Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined 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."
40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows:
"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;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re- appreciating 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 Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined 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 from patent perversity;
41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material 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.
42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court."
9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio, now, even after re-appreciation of entire sets of evidence, and so also having gone through the impugned judgment, for following shortcoming and reasons, the accused could not be held guilty for commission of crime under Section 302 of I.P.C.Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined As such, we could not find any infirmity either in findings so recorded by Trial Court and its ultimate conclusion by which accused has been acquitted for the charge of murder i.e. Section 302 of I.P.C. The aforestated conclusion is supported by the following reasons:-
9.1 As per the FIR (Exh.24) registered by the victim himself on 13.4.1998, it suggests that incident of inflicting knife blow by the respondent-accused taken place near pan shop at around 8.30 p.m. on 12.04.1998, that too in the presence of his friend Rajendrasinh Achalsinh Marwadi (PW
5) and other persons who tried to save victim.
9.2 Whereas, as per Vardhi recorded by Kishorsinh Ramsinh Parmar, Head Constable (PW 3) at L.G.Hospital at early morning hours @ 00:35 am on 13.04.1998, would suggest that such incident of receiving injuries by the victim at his residence taken place at 11.00 pm on 12.4.1998. After injuries, he brought to L.G. Hospital by his grandmother Soniben, who never examined by prosecution Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined as witness.
9.3 As per Vardhi and FIR, victim found conscious. Even the medical case papers of L.G. hospital also suggest and confirm said fact. Nonetheless, despite both facts reported by victim in near time, still there is noticeable difference in time and place of commission of crime. Though, there is an anomaly in timing and place of crime, prosecution unable to resolve it during trial. This one fact creates serious doubt about genuineness of story put forward by victim himself.
9.4 The case papers of the victim made available on record of the case would suggest that post operation, only antibiotics given to him, not to develop any infection in body. Before he fully cured, he took discharge against medical advice on 27.4.1998. It is required to be noted here that when he took discharge against the medical advise (DAMA), there was no infection found in his body as admitted by witness PW 6 - Dr.Smt Dharmila Gunvant Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Shah.
9.5 As per case of PW-1, father of victim that when victim again developed some complications, readmitted in L.G.Hospital around on 02.5.1998 and later on reported died on 9.5.1998, but there is no case papers of 2.5.1998 or otherwise made available on record by prosecution. Even doctor of said hospital (PW-6) during her evidence not able to lay her hand to any such subsequent treatment taken by victim on 02.05.1998.
9.6 It is clearly stated by the father of the victim examined as PW 1 - Ravjibhai that the victim went away from hospital after 2.5.1998 and when he saw his son facing so many difficulties and complained about pain decided to readmit him in the hospital, but before he took any further decision, the victim died on 9.5.1998. The postmortem report appears to have been performed on 15.5.1998 after exhumed the dead body of victim otherwise buried on 9.5.1998 without informing police by his father, Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined who later on himself informed police about factum of death. The above act of relative of victim creates lots of suspicion in prudent mind.
9.7 Only one eye witness Rajendrasinh Achalsinh Marwadi (PW 5) examined by the prosecution who turned hostile having not supported the case of the prosecution. Though incident took place in public place as per the FIR and statement of more persons recorded by police, no other eye witness except PW-5 examined despite victim gave their reference in his complaint - FIR.
9.8 No blood stain of victim either collected and/or found at pan shop or at the residence of the victim as nothing came on record to substantiate the same. Likewise, knife which alleged to have been recovered from the custody of the respondent accused not sent to FSL nor his possession proved as panch witness turned hostile. 9.9 Dr. Laljibhai Khimjibhai Rathod (PW 8) who Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined performed postmortem was examined by the prosecution, but this Court, after reading his cross examination, several anomalies were found as regards preparation of postmortem report, inasmuch as, several columns were either casually field in or kept blank while preparing P.M. report. Even three injuries found on the dead body as per the inquest panchnama, whereas as per the P.M. report, it was five in number. Nonetheless, PW-8 unable to give plausible explanation for such anomalies in number of injuries found on the dead body. No probable time of death recorded in said report. PW-8 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not inquire about previous history of victim either from police or victim's relative and further admitted that if previous history of patient not known to him, he could not give final opinion of cause of death. Further admitted that there might be another reason of death of victim than shown in P.M. report as he shown only probable cause of death. It needs to take note of serious lapse on part of PW-8, when he admitted that whenever dead body exhumed while performing postmortem, one needs to collect Viscera sample Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined for further examination. But, as admitted by PW-8, he did neither collect nor send Viscera for examination from dead body of victim. There are other anomalies also noticed in his evidence but not required to be discussed in detail as we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Trial Court, whereby held that the manner in which postmortem is prepared which creates reasonable doubt about its genuineness and might not have been prepared by PW-8. 9.10 Lastly, it is also coming forth in cross- examination of Dr.Laljibhai Khimjibhai Rathod (PW-8) that injuries sustained by the victim were not on vital part of body and not even fatal to cause death. As observed herein above, when victim himself took DAMA and went out of hospital on his own, later on found dead due to infection as the case may be, considering entire set of evidence on record, according to our view as well, the prosecution failed to prove that there was proximity between injuries sustained and death. Thus, in view of aforesaid and on re- appreciation of evidence, the statement recorded by the Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined police in the form of FIR or Vardhi of the victim, cannot be treated as his dying declaration.
10. All these above factors would clearly suggest that there is weakness and short-comings in the case of the prosecution and the evidence led by the prosecution not inspired any confidence at least to us, whereby we can upturn decision of learned Trial Court acquitting the respondent accused by giving him benefit of doubt.
11. Thus, in view of the above referred flaws in the evidence of prosecution and after going through the reasons assigned by learned trial Court, we are in complete agreement with the reasons and the view taken by learned trial Court whereby acquitted the respondent - accused.
12. Considering these set of evidences on record and in light of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred hereinabove, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Judge, Court No.24, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.371 of 1998 (Trial Court) while acquitting the respondent
- accused.
13. This appeal found meritless, accordingly DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) (P. M. RAVAL, J) H.M. PATHAN Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:30:12 IST 2025