Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Parshottambhai Kanjibhai Patel on 24 November, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 762 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PARSHOTTAMBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3,5,9
MR RASHIN R PATEL FOR HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,6,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. Here is the Appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal.
2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar, passed in Sessions Case No.40 of 2002, dated 27.03.2003, acquitting the respondents from the offence under Sections 302, 435, 337, 323, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the State has Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
3. This Court has heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State, and Mr.Rishil R. Patel, learned advocate for H.L. Patel Advocates appearing for and on behalf of the respondent - accused.
4. This acquittal appeal qua respondent accused nos.3, 5 and 9 stands abated as pending the appeal, they have passed away.
5. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that the incident of murder and causing damages to the vehicle was an aftermath of events at Godhra allegedly took place in the same year 2002. On the day of incident, there was a Bharat Band Announcement and admittedly, rioting being took place across the Gujarat State and thousand of people were on the road in protest of the Godhra Carnage. The deceased Iqbal Bakraliya resident of Modasa was on duty as a Driver of the Truck bearing No.GJ-9T-8269, and a Conductor PW:8 Mohammad Sahid was accompanied him throughout the tour. The deceased was on the way to Modasa Town and had proceeded from Ahmedabad. The deceased was restrained near Tajpur Stand, Prantij by the mob of people and then, realizing the situation and to protect himself, he drove the truck on the field of the road-side where he was assaulted with the set on fire.
The incident of killing driver and set him on fire being reported to Prantij Police Station and the police officials who were on patrolling Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined intimated through wireless message and accordingly, the police officials of Prantij Police Station rushed to the place of the incident where they saw six persons, standing near the damage vehicle. The police official, detained the six persons and they had been taken to Prantij Police Station. The FIR came to be filed by PW:1 Deepsinh Javansinh, inter alia alleging that the six persons found at the place had killed the deceased by setting him on fire and also damaged the truck vehicle. The offence being registered with Prantij Police Station and accordingly, the respondents accused were arrested. The I.O. of the case recorded the statements of the witnesses, drew the panchnama of the place of the incident, sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem, and at the end, he filed a chargesheet against the respondents accused for the offences, as referred above, before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.
5. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Court committed the case to the Sessions Court, who has been culminated into Sessions Case No.40 of 2002.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha framed charge under Sections 302, 143, 147, 149, 435, 337 and 323 of the IPC and Section 135 of the B.P. Act, against the accused to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In the course of trial, the prosecution adduced the following oral as well as documentary evidence in support of its case:
Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Oral evidence PW 1 - Exh.17 Deepsinh Jawansinh, PSI PW 2 - Exh.19 Balusinh Kalusinh PW 3 - Exh.23 Laxmansinh Mulsinh PW 4 - Exh.25 Mohammadishak Dawoodbhai PW 5 - Exh.26 Noorjahan Iqbalhusain Ismailbhai PW 6 - Exh.27 Ahmedbhai Ismailbhai PW 7 - Exh.28 Mohammadkhalif Abbubakar PW 8 - Exh.29 Mohammadshahid Ahmedhusain PW 9 - Exh.30 Subbamiyan Dolubhai PW 10 - Exh.31 Naveenbhai Galbabhai PW 11 - Exh.34 Dr. Bharatbhai Jitendrabhai PW 12 - Exh.37 Rajendrasinh Harisinh PW 13 - Exh.39 Somabhai Hitabhai PW 14 - Exh.40 Dalpatbhai Karsanbhai Documentary evidence Exh.18 Complaint Exh.20 Panchnama of place of offence Exh.21 Inquest panchnama Exh.22 Panchnama of deceased body Exh.35 PM Note Exh.33 Map of place of offence
8. On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded further statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, they claimed their innocence.
9. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the accused herein for the offences with which they were charged, on the ground that, only presence at the time when the offence is committed, is not sufficient to show that the accused were members of the unlawful assembly, and Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined therefore, mere a presence, without anything further, they cannot be held to be part of unlawful assembly.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State.
11. Oral Evidence adduced by the prosecution:
11.1 Deepsinh Javansinh (PW:1):
This witness being a police official of Prantij Police Station, had received an information about the alleged incident of murder by the mob of people. On receiving the message, he rushed to the place of the incident, where he saw six persons standing nearby the damage truck. The witness has stated in his chief examination that the truck was found in almost burnt conditions along with the dead body of the driver. The witness has detained the six persons from the spot and taken them to the Prantij Police Station where he lodged an FIR for the alleged killing of the driver by setting him on fire by the accused. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that out of six persons, who was having stick in their hands that he had not disclosed in his FIR.
11.2 Laxmansinh Mulsinh (PW:3):
This witness was part of the patrolling team and after the information received from the police station, he had also visited Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined the place of the incident where he saw ten to fifteen persons standing nearby the place. The witness has stated on the line of PW:1 and therefore, no need to refer in detail his deposition.
11.3 Mohammad Ishak (PW:4):
This witness is the owner of truck in question and according to his version, deceased Iqbal was being employed by him as a driver and he was informed by one advocate Khalid about the alleged incident.
11.4 Nurjaha Ismail (PW:5) and Ahemad Ismail (PW:6):
Both the witnesses are wife and younger brother of the deceased driver. They have no any personal knowledge about the incident.
11.5 Mohammad Khalid (PW:7):
This witness being a practicing advocate came to know about the incident from the Prantij Police Station when he visited the police station for his personal work.
11.6 Mohammad Sahid (PW:8):
This witness being a conductor of the truck has stated in his chief examination that, on the day of incident, he was on duty and the truck was driven by deceased Iqbal and while reaching near Tajpur, the mob of people restrained the truck and asked the driver deceased to give his licence and after seeing the seriousness of the situation, the driver tried to escape from the Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined place and the truck was struck in the nearby field of the road where the truck was set on fire and after assaulting the driver, he was burnt alive. The witness has further stated that he was also assaulted by the iron pipe and somehow he managed to escape from the place. The witness could not identify the accused in the Court as an assailants and perpetrator of the crime.
11.7 Bharat Jitendrabhai (PW:11):
This doctor being a medical officer had conducted the postmortem of the body of deceased and according to his opinion, the cause of death was shocked due to burn injuries.
12. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal, have submitted that the findings of acquittal are contrary to law and evidence on record and the findings recorded are palpably erroneous and based on the irrelevant material. That the presence of the respondents accused at the place of the incident, being proved by the prosecution as the police officials, who reached at the place, had noticed that the presence of the accused and therefore, in the absence of cogent explanation by the accused regarding their presence at the scene of crime, the Trial Court ought to have held that the accused were part of the mob and being a member of unlawful assembly, they had killed the driver by setting him on fire and caused damages to the truck.
Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
13. In such circumstances, as referred above, it has been submitted that while acquitting the respondent accused, the trial Court has discarded and ignored the truthful, reliable and acceptable evidence and as such, no cogent reasons being assigned while discarding such evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the conclusion of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and upon erroneous understanding of law. Thus, it is prayed that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the respondents accused and the judgment and order of acquittal be set aside and accused may be convicted and sentenced for the offence as referred above.
14. Mr.Rishin R. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondents accused has submitted that the High Court in a case of Appeal against the acquittal, can interfere only when there are compelling substantial reasons for doing so and more particularly, the findings are without reasons and unreasonable and contrary to the evidence. It is further submitted that on the day of incident, there was an announcement of Bharat Band and due to Godhra Carnage, the rioting was on roads and public place of the town and villages. In that circumstances, the presence of the respondents accused being villagers, was natural and merely on the basis of their presence, without anything further on their part, they cannot be held to be a member of unlawful assembly and in absence of any acceptable and cogent evidence, the inference cannot be drawn that the accused had participated and killed the driver and caused damages to the vehicle.
Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
15. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned counsel appearing for the respondents accused, has submitted that the Trial Court while discarding the evidence of oral testimonies of the witnesses have assigned cogent and sufficient reasons while acquitting the accused and therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed is well reasoned, legally sustainable and does not suffer any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
16. Before proceeding to address the rival submissions, we would like to place on record the scope of interference in an appeal against the acquittal and when the same is justified. 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 judgment of acquittal. The Appellate Court should bare in mind the presence of innocence of the accused and further that, the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner, where the other view of possible should be avoided, unless there are reasons for interference.
17. In the present case the issue falls for our consideration as to whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused?
18. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court.
Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
19. In the case on hand, it is no in dispute that the death of the driver Iqbal was homicidal and his dead body was found at the place mentioned in the panchnama of scene of occurrence. Thus, on 01.03.2002, in the jurisdictional area of Tajpur Village, the dead body of deceased found in a totally burnt condition and the truck was also lying with the flame of fire. The issue falls for our consideration whether the accused respondents were member of unlawful assembly and act of rioting and being a member, whether it is proved that they killed the deceased by setting him on fire and caused damages to the truck in question. Out of 14 witnesses, PW:1 and PW:3, reached at the place of the incident and before they could reach there, the mob of people already set on fire the deceased and caused damages to the truck. Thus, except the facts of presence of the accused at the scene of offence, nothing being brought on record to show that the accused had participated in the offence and they were member of unlawful assembly. The important witness PW:8, the conductor of the truck did not have identified the accused in the Court, nor stated in the chief examination that the accused being a part of the mob had acted further and killed the driver and assaulted him. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the accused who are resident of nearby area and their presence at the time, when the police came at the spot, is not sufficient to prove that they were member of unlawful assembly which committed the offence. It is no doubt true that the incident was an aftermath of events at Godhra and across the Godhra, the people were on roads and streets. In such circumstances, there is no evidence either direct or circumstantial to infer that the accused either formed an Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined unlawful assembly or joined the unlawful assembly with a common object to do the offence of rioting and murder of the people from the minority community. The Supreme Court, time and again, in its various judgments, held and observed that the mere a presence of a person in or near the place is not sufficient to show that he or she was also member of the unlawful assembly. In the case of Musakhan Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 2566), the Supreme Court has held that a bystander cannot come within the mischief of Section 149, unless it is shown that the accused had shared the common object of unlawful assembly. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Dhirubhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No.816 of 2016, dated 21.03.2025), on the identical issue, has held that in cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, an onerous duty is caste upon the Court to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of his liberty and in such type of cases, the Courts must be circumspect and reluctant to rely upon the testimony of witnesses who make general statement without specific reference to the accused or role played by him. This is so, because very often particularly when the scene of crime is public place, out of curiosity, person step out of their home to witness as to what is happening around. Thus, as a rule of caution, and not a rule of law, where the evidence on record establishes the fact that a large number of persons were present, it may be safe to convict only those persons against whom overact is alleged. In the facts of the present case, and upon examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, except the presence of the accused at the scene of offence, nothing further Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined being deposed by the witnesses against them and therefore, in absence of any acceptable, cogent evidence about the overact on the part of the accused, being a bystander, they cannot be held to be a member of unlawful assembly.
20 For the reasons aforementioned, the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, therefore, the view of the Trial Court as is possible and plausible view and the Trial Court while analyzing the evidence has assigned cogent and sound reasons and therefore, findings of acquittal are reasonable and based on the evidence on record and we do not find any perversity in the findings of acquittal so as to interfere. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused and we are in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of acquittal recorded by the Court below and hence finds no reason to interfere with the same.
21. With the observations as aforesaid, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the R & P to the Trial Court. Bail bonds are cancelled, if any, and surety is discharged.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) Rakesh Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:19:14 IST 2025