Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sindhi Dafer Ibrahim Juma on 28 November, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 530 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
SINDHI DAFER IBRAHIM JUMA & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 7
MR NAUMAN S QURESHI(10669) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI(1077) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK) Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined
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 12.03.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, Camp at Patan (hereinafter be referred to as "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No.211 of 1997, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused No.1 to 7 (respondents herein) from the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427, 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as "the IPC").
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.10.1994 Near Shankheswar, about two milometers from Shankheswar, around 21 hours at night, when the S.T. bus reached near a canal on the highway from Ratanpur towards Shankheswar, a truck bearing registration No. GJ-01-Z-2641 was standing in front of the bus and on otherside a cement pipe was lying, blocking both the sides, which obstructing the traffic and when the vehicles stopped at that place, the accused came there and stopped the bus and tried to enter into the bus committed an offence of dacoity and robbery and because of the truck lying ahead of the S. T. bus, the S.T. Bus could not over take the truck and in the result, two unknown persons opened the door of the bus at the driver side and started abusing the driver and tried to assault upon the driver. Thereafter, another person had come to the conductor side and broken the windshield of the conductor seat, from which the persons have opened the lock from the inside and entered into S.T. Bus have committed dacoity and robbery. Hence, a complaint was lodged by the complainant before Sami Police Station and it has been registered as I - C.R.No.163 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427, 114 etc of IPC and police started investigation. The police prepared inquest panchnama as well Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined as panchnama of scene of offence in presence of panchas. The accused were arrested and muddamals were discovered in presence of panchas. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
2.2 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court vide Exhibit 17 for the aforesaid offences. 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, Mehsana, Camp at Patan.
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 Jashubha Hariji Mahesaniya 29 2 Visabhai Haribhai Vaghela 31 3 Maanubhai Pujabhai 33 4 Hirabhai Arjanbhai 34 5 Jesangbhai Visabhai 36 6 Rajnikant Vasantlal 37 7 Chamanbhai Mafabhai Prajapati 41 8 Devjibhai Mansangbhai Makwana 43 9 Dilipbhai Hirachand 44 10 Hemlataben Dilipbhai 45 11 Swatiben Dilipbhai Shah 46 12 Diptiben Dilipbhai Shah 47 13 Rameshnath Shamnath Bava 48 14 Mahadevbhai Danubhai Nadoda 49 Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined 15 Vinubhai Shankarbhai 50 16 Chandubhai Kasturbhai Soni 52 17 Salimbhai Usmanbhai 53 18 Hargovanbhai Dharamchand Modha 58 19 Babubhai Hasanali Vora 63 20 Mahammad Hanif Jalalbhai Saiyed 64 21 Gautambhai Vrajlal Soni 69 22 Sattarbhai Gokulbhai 71 23 Kiritkumar Mohanlal Pathak 72 24 Virendrasinh Munsisinh Rajput 73 25 Umakant Vadilal Bhojak 74 26 Allarakha Ahmedbhai Shaikh 76 27 Shankarbhai Okhabhai 77 28 Premjibhai Hathibhai 78 29 Setansinh Sardarsinh Chavda 81 30 Vasudev Sitaram Brahmbhatt 83 31 Jagdishchandra Amaratlal Shah 85 32 Arjunsinh Devsinh Chauhan 87
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence.
Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit
1 Panchnama of Test Identification Parade -
2 Complaint 30
3 Panchnama of the scene of offence 32
4 Seizure Panchnama 35
5 Discovery Panchnama 38
6 Identification Panchnama of muddamal 42
7 Yadi for preparing identification parade 59
8 Panchnama of identification parade dtd 14.02.1997 60
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
9 Panchnama of identification parade 62
10 Invitation card of marriage 68
11 Panchnama of seeing the place of scene of offence 70
12 Panchnama of Identification parade 75
13 Panchnama of Identification parade 80
14 Report of Sami Police Station 82
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 were 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 them.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.
8. Heard Mr.Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State of Gujarat and Mr.Shakeel Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - accused at length.
9. Mr.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - Sate of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. He has submitted that though the prosecution has examined as many as 32 witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and disbelieved the same on Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined the ground that the prosecution has not proved the charge against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the prosecution had not examined material witnesses and thereby suppressed the genesis, which is contrary to the facts of the case. He has submitted that though the panch witnesses have been examined, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, the trial Court has discarded their evidence and completely overlooked and ignored the same.
9.1 Mr.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State of Gujarat has submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and facts. He has submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the complaint filed by the complainant, who was a Bus Conductor at the relevant point of time, though the accused have committed robbery of the amount, wrist watch etc. from the conductor. He has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of facts and law in holding that before T.I. Parade, the witness Jasubha, Devjibhai Makwana and Naranbhai had shown the accused persons in police custody and, thereafter, T.I. Parade was arranged and, therefore, T.I. Parade was not legal. He has submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that accused Aachar @ Abdul and Ibrahim were identified by the concerned witnesses. He has submitted that the panchnama at Exhibit 70 and the panch witness Gautambhai Vrajlal at Exhibit 69 and other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
9.2 According to submission of Mr.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined ought to have imposed necessary sentence. He has prayed to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
10. Mr.Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the T.I. Parades were held in the year 1994 i.e. after three years and even the identification of the accused was doubtful and there was delay in conducting the T.I. Parade after the arrest of the accused. He has submitted that the aspect of dacoity and robbery has been falsified as per the deposition of goldsmith i.e. Chandubhai Kasturbhai Soni, who examined at Exhibit 145 but not supported the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that Salimbhai Usmanbhai, who accompanied the accused for selling gold was also not identified by goldsmith and panch witness at Exhibit 37, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the signatures in the panchnama were made in the police station and it was prepared in advance and he had not read the same. He has submitted that the reason assigned by the trial Court for giving benefit of doubt to the accused is just and proper and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the appeal. He has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and no complete chain or sequence is established, by which, it can be said that the respondents are guilty of the offences under Sections 395, 397, 427 and 114 of the IPC. He has submitted that the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and there was no any corroboration in the evidence of the complainant and, hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the alleged offences. He has further submitted that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in true sense and the incident occurred in night hour on 30.10.1994 and Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined the T.I. Parade was held on 14.02.1997 and therefore there was delay in T.I. Parade after arrest of the accused. He has also submitted that looking to the date of incident and looking to the age of the respondents, who were almost senior citizens, and now almost 29 years have been passed from the date of incident, the Court may not entertain the appeal. Lastly, Mr.Qureshi, learned counsel has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
10.1 In support of his submission, Mr.Qureshi, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-
(1) Hari Nath Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1988) 1 SCC 14 (paras 7, 8, 12, 13);
(2) Iqbal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 623 (paras 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20);
(3) Ankush Mariti Shinde Vs. Ambadas Laxman Shinde, (2019) 15 SCC 470 (paras 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14);
(4) Gireesan Nair Vs. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180 (paras 19, 30, 31, 44, 45, 46, 53, 57 and 58);
(5) Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2021 (9) Scale 359; (6) Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) Scale 484; (7) Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225; (8) Mohan @ Srinivas @ Seena @ Tailor Seena Vs. State of Karnataka, (2022) 12 SCC 619;
11. On perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, it reveals that the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and there was no any corroboration in the evidence of the complainant and, Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the alleged offences. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, it transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The trial Court, in paras 20 and 21, has discussed the reasons and evidence i.e. Panchnama of T.I. Parade at Exhibit 62 through concerned witness at Exhibit 64, Panchnama of T. I. Parade at Exhibit 80 vis-a-vis the evidence of panch witness at Exhibit 76. The trial Court has, after exhaustive discussion of the evidence of the witnesses, manner in which the T.I. Parade, rightly disbelieved the identification of the accused because while holding the T.I. Parade, the prosecution has not followed the guidelines as laid down under the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code and thus the identification is doubtful. So far as rest of the accused persons is concerned, they have been identified by the panchas, however, the panchas had not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. Even the injury described by the witnesses is not supported by the medical evidence and there is no any material discrepancy. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, has not committed any illegality and infirmity and hence, no interference is required to be called for.
12. On perusal of the judgment and award, it appears that the trial Court has discussed the evidence led by the prosecution, consisting it as not sufficient and not supporting the case of the prosecution, except that of identifying only two accused persons, there is no Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined sufficient evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove the case. On perusal of the evidence of the complainant and driver, it emerges that there is material contradiction with regard to the commission of crime in question and there is no any illegality and infirmity in the judgment and order of acquittal.
13. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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 their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
14. Further, 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. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged.
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. 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 Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined 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. Considering the entire evidence on record and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it clearly appears that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record.
18. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re- appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
19. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/530/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined 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 14 of 14 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:01 IST 2025