Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Surtanbhai Khetabhai Taviyad on 28 November, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 821 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SURTANBHAI KHETABHAI TAVIYAD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,7
MR M T SAIYAD(3848) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. Challenge has been given by the State to the judgment of acquittal dated 8.10.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case no.94 of 1996. The trial was against eight accused under Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 337, 324, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 28(b) and 28(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the State, referring to the witnesses examined, submitted that the acquittal is erroneous. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW8, PW9 and PW10, more particularly, the evidence of Natvarsinh Madhubhai Patel and Presiding Officer-Patel Bababhai Hirabhai. Ms. Bhatt stated that the evidence clearly establish that some persons had arrived on the Booth and had assaulted the persons who were engaged in work. The injuries gets corroborated by the medical evidence.
2.1 Ms. Bhatt submitted that the learned Trial Court Judge has committed an error in disbelieving the Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined evidence of Shantaben only on the ground that she has not received injuries and therefore, her presence on the place of incident was doubted. Ms. Bhatt further submitted that the prosecution had not explained the injuries caused to the accused persons. The learned Trial Court Judge has erred in holding the witnesses as interested and has taken into consideration the irrelevant facts while acquitting the accused.
3. The charge was framed against the accused below Exh.3 on the ground that on 16.6.1995 at 07.00 a.m. in the compound of the primary school at Matafadiya of Village Lakhanpur, Taluka Santrampur, District Panchmahal, the complainant-Deetabhai Pujabhai Taviyad was the agent of the Congress party candidate Kamlabhai Chuniyabhai in Jilla Panchayat election and witness - Kamlabhai Chuniyabhai was the agent of the candidate of Congress party Shantaben Parsingbhai.
Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined
4. It was alleged that on the Ota of the school, the procedure for filling the form was in progress, at that time, all the accused forming unlawful assembly wielded with deadly weapons like sword, chain, trident (Trishul) in furtherance of the common intention to create disturbance in the election, had caused rioting. With an intention to make the candidature of Bharatiya Janata Party successful, the accused quarreled with the complainant and the witness at the polling booth. Accused no.1 was having chain in his hand and gave a grievous blow on the forehead of the complainant, accused no.1 with sword assaulted the brother of the complainant who raised his hand to resist the blow, sustained injury on the head, accused no.3 with the sword caused injury to witness - Mahesh Bhikha on his right shoulder, accused no.4 with the sword, injured Mahesh Bhikha on the hands as well as forehead, accused no.5, threw stone on Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined the chest of Khetabhai Galiyabhai causing injury, accused no.6 with the trident injured Bharat Chiman on the hand, while accused nos.7 and 8 had thrown stones at the booth creating riot.
5. The charge was that had the injury caused by the accused no.1 to witness - Parsingbhai and by accused nos.3 and 4 to witness - Maheshbhai could turn fatal, causing their death, would amount to murder. The learned Trial Court Judge observed the evidence of the witnesses to analyze for coming to the conclusion of acquittal. Dr. Lalsing Gulabsing Raval examined at Exh.15-A stated that Parsingbhai Pujabhai Taviyad and Maheshbhai Bhikhabhai Taviyad both under transfer record of CHC, Sukhsar along with the Medical Officer had come for treatment at Santrampur State Hospital. On examination, he had given Exhs.16 and 17 certificate. The Doctor could state that injury no.1 to Parsing Pujabhai Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined was grievous, while injury nos.2 and 3 were simple in nature, for Maheshbhai Bhikhabhai, it was recorded that the injury no.1 was grievous, while rest of the injury nos.2 to 4 were simple in nature. According to the Doctor, the injury which was sustained by patient - Parsingbhai could occur with the Muddamal sword. The Doctor stated that injury no.1 could be caused if the blow of the sword is resisted. The injury to Maheshbhai could be caused by the sword. In the cross-examination, the Medical Officer affirmed that he does not approve of the suggestion that grievous injuries would mean life threatening. He also affirmed that none of the injuries caused to patient Mahesh has resulted into fracture. The medical evidence, thus, did not prove of any injury in the nature, which could have been resulted fatal to the life of the injured.
Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined
6. Witness - Deetabhai Pujabhai was examined at Exh.22. They are three brothers. In the year 1995, there was Taluka and District Panchayat election. In Taluka Panchayat, the candidate was Raghubhai, the election was on 16.6.1995. The election center was Matafadiya Primary School. On the date of the election, he was at the center and had gone for filling the form of agent of Shantaben and along with him was Kamlabhai. When they were filling up form for the election agent, at that time, his brother Parsingbhai came at the center. The witness stated that election had not started. Shantaben and Raghubhai were the Congress candidates and Mangdiben of Surtan Kheta was the candidate from Bharatiya Janata Party. Against Raghubhai, there was Bhurabhai Katara from Bharatiya Janata Party. When they were filling up the form, Surtansang Mansing came on the motorcycle and after seeing them, he went towards the house of Mangdiben. He stated that Bhursing Kheta was Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined younger brother. Thereafter, he met about 15 people who arrived there in jeep no.7717 with weapons, entering the school compound started beating. According to him, Bhursing Dala gave him a blow on the forehead with the chain. He started bleeding. Surtan Kheta assaulted Parsingbhai with the sword whose hands got cut and another injuries were on the head who too was bleeding. At that time, his nephew Mahesh came there to rescue them. Kamla Jyoti assaulted Mahesh with the sword on hand. The witness also stated that Havsing Bhala had also beaten Mahesh on shoulder with the sword. The injury was grievous and therefore, he fell down on the ground. Kheta Gadiya thereafter came there and started throwing stones. Bharat Chiman was assaulted by Mansing Dama on hand with trident. The witness also stated that Mansing Kheta, Ranga Mansing and others had also pelted stones on them.
Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined
7. It was brought in the cross-examination that Raghubhai was contesting the election third time and earlier too, during the Panchayat election, there were riots and cases continued for two to five years. He affirmed Shantaben and Raghubhai being candidate of the same Congress party. He further affirmed that at the election center, police officer, Presiding Officer and security people had come there. Police was present there with gun for Bandobast. The witness does not recall whether both the parties had moved an application for police Bandobast prior to election. He affirmed that Raghubhai and Shantaben were defeated in the election and he denied the suggestion that since they were apprehending their defeat and therefore, had come prepared for the riots. The witness could not explain the injuries suffered by Surtanbhai. He affirmed that Nathabhai and Bharat Chimanbhai were there along with him, while denied the suggestion that all were having sword, stick and Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined stones. He denied the suggestion that Surtanbhai was assaulted with the sword and his hands got cut, and his life was in danger. He denied the suggestion that in the morning, they had tried to capture the whole booth and had created an atmosphere endangering the life of the people. They did not deem fit to give the complaint before the police at the polling booth and had not met the Presiding Officer to take the assistance of the police at the polling center.
8. Witness - Parsingbhai Punjabhai Taviyad who was the injured was examined at Exh.23. He was Sarpanch for about three years of Lakhanpur Gram Panchayat. His wife - Shantaben was contesting the election from Congress party in Taluka Panchayat and in District Panchayat, Raghubhai stood for the election who is his brother. Reiterating the same facts as stated by the witness Deetabhai Punjabhai, he stated that he was assaulted by Surtan Kheta with the sword Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined since he raised both his hands, he suffered injury on his hands. He also stated that Surtan Kheta had assaulted with the sword on his head, while referring to injuries of other witnesses. The witness stated that complaint of this incident was given by his brother. The police had come to Santrampur Hospital. He denied the suggestion that except Parsing and Mahesh, none had gone to the hospital. In the cross- examination, rivalry of both the parties was brought on record inspite of police Bandobast at the election center and though there was availability of police at the place of incident, no complaint was immediately filed. It appears that the persons from both the parties had a clash and both the sides had sustained injuries. However, the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the persons of the opposite party. The real fact of the assault has been suppressed. Even witness - Maheshbhai Bhikhabhai at Exh.24 whose aunt - Shantaben was Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined the candidate could only state about the injuries suffered by the persons who were supporting them.
9. Patel Lalabhai Hirabhai at Exh.34 stated that he, on 15.6.1995, was appointed as Presiding Officer at the polling booth of Matafadiya, Ratanpur. It was Taluka Panchayat election. They had taken all the materials for the election at the booth. They stayed overnight there. The Presiding Officer along with him was Dahyabhai and there were other police persons. The election time started at 07.45 on 16.6.1995. They were in the room and there were verbal quarrel between the agent, so at that time, Presiding Officer shut the room. He stated that the process of voting had not begun. There was quarrel between persons of Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress party, but has no knowledge about who were involved in the quarrel. The Presiding Officer has no knowledge about the Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined injury.
10. Dr. Sumanben Maljibhai Palash at Exh.41 was at Primary Health Center on his duty as Medical Officer has referred to the injury to Mahesh Bhikha Taviyad, Parsing Punjabhai Taviyad, Deeta Punjabhai Taviyad, Hetabhai Taviyad. According to the Doctor, the injury to Mahesh Bhikha Taviyad and Parsing Punja could be by sharp cutting weapon, while to Deeta Punja and Teeta Daliya with hard and blunt substance.
11. Natvarlal Patel at Exh.48 had deposed about his duty for police Bandobast during the election. He does not know the name of the persons who had come in the jeep. According to him, there was verbal quarrel, one of the person in Bhagva clothes was with Trishul in his hand, another had sword and one had cycle chain. The person who had come there quarreled at the place. He moved away from the place as he sustained injury. The witness could not name the person Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined who caused the injury, nor could he depose of any injury to the witnesses by the accused.
12. The learned Trial Court Judge has found that the true facts could not be brought on record. The injury sustained by the other side has not been proved. The production of the weapons has not been proved by the Panchnama. The Panchas have not supported the case. The learned Trial Court Judge has referred to the case in Laxmansinh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in 1976 Cr.L.J. 1736 to observe that when the witnesses of the prosecution could not clarify with regard to the injuries on the body of the accused, then in that circumstances, the Court has to assume that the prosecution witnesses were suppressing the material facts of the incident and that the true version has not been declared.
13. The admitted position is that there was clash between the members of both the political parties. Though the police was present there, Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined the complaint has not been lodged. The witnesses had not sought for any police protection. The accused too have sustained injuries when the prosecution witnesses could not explain about the injuries caused to the accused, then as observed by the learned Trial Court Judge, there is reason to believe that the prosecution witnesses are suppressing the material facts. The evidence of the witnesses could not be considered as reliable or inspiring confidence. Thus, we do not find any reason to give a contrary observation to the facts analyzed by the learned Judge.
14. In the case of Bhagwan Sahai and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2016) 13 SCC 171, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
8. "...Once the Court came to a finding that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and also failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused including death of father of the appellants, the only Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined possible and probable course left open was to grant benefit of doubt to the appellants..."
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , (2007) 4 SCC 415 it was held as under:
"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 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 Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined 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 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."
16. In the case of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and Anr. Vs State of Gujarat, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 523 : 2024 INSC 295, it was held as Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined under:-
"6. ...Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal..."
17. In the result to the observation made hereinabove, we do not find any cause to interfere and disturb the findings of the learned Trial Court Judge in the judgment of acquittal. The appeal stands dismissed. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Maulik Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:21 IST 2025