Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Himmatbhai @ Somabhai Ratanjibhai ... on 28 November, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 836 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
HIMMATBHAI @ SOMABHAI RATANJIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK MEHTA APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,5,7,9
MR KASHYAP R JOSHI(2133) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,3,4,6,8
==========================================================
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. The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 19.06.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.78 of 1990, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all accused for the Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C. for short). All the nine accused were found innocent on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the case.
2. The charge was framed below Exh.6 in Sessions Case No.78 of 1990 alleging that on 01.04.1990 between 10:00 to 12:00 hours at night, all accused under the unlawful assembly with a common intention, hatched conspiracy to cause death of Chhitubhai Haribhai of village Juna Bhorbhatta. The allegation is of causing injury with wooden log and stick. The injury was alleged to have been caused with the weapon resulting into murder of Chhitubhai Haribhai.
3. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Mehta relying on the deposition of the complainant - Hiraben submitted that she has clearly disclosed the fact that prior to the incident, Hasubhai Bhikhabhai Ahir Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined was beaten by the brother of the complainant Mangubhai and Chhitubhai and therefore, to avenge the enmity, had formed unlawful assembly with clear intention to cause murder of Chitubhai Haribhai.
3.1 Learned APP Mr. Mehta submitted all accused assaulted deceased and thereafter, the body was taken in a Jeep at the house of Govindbhai Somabhai where the body was left. The evidence of the complainant, her husband as well as Govindbhai would clarify the fact that all accused had gone to the house of the complainant. Learned APP submitted that complainant herself is an eye witness to the incident and the learned Trial Court Judge has miserably erred in acquitting the accused.
3.2 Relying on the postmortem report, learned APP submitted that there were many injuries on the body of deceased and the cause of death was Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined the multiple injuries sustained by Chhitubhai Haribhai.
4. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Kashyap R.Joshi for the respondents submitted that the very evidence of the complainant would prove that it was a false case lodged against accused. The weapon, as alleged by the complaint is contrary to one, alleged to have been involved by the prosecution. The fact that complainant left the place even after seeing her brother allegedly being beaten by accused, creates doubt to her conduct. Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that the fact of dead body being brought at the house of Govindbhai Ahir (P.W.4) also brings a contrary evidence of the complainant, who stated that dead body was brought to her home and was kept beside her own son on the cot.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that no blood stains were found there, nor signs of Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined any physical fight was noted. The Doctor has deposed that Injury Nos.2 to 9 were simple in nature, thus stated that cause of death is something strange, which has been suppressed and has not been brought on record.
5. On hearing the arguments canvassed by both the sides, we perused the record as well as deposition of the witnesses. The complainant is Hiraben Kalidas, sister of deceased - Chhitubhai Haribhai. Deceased was elder brother of the complainant and she also have another brother Mangubhai Haribhai. As per her deposition, when she was at home, at that time, Govindbhai Somabhai Ahir came the to call her and asked her to join him and told her that Chhitubhai was beaten. The complainant refers to the names of all accused and identified them in the Court. 5.1 According to the complainant thereafter she joined Govindbhai to his house, where she saw Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined Somabhai Ratanji beating Chhitubhai and at that time all the other accused were also beating Chhitubhai. They wielded with sword and knife. According to the complainant at that time Chhitubhai was alive and was near the house of Govindbhai Somabhai. She was informed that they would take Chhitubhai to police station and pushed her aside and because of fear, she left for her home.
5.2 The complainant further deposed that thereafter all accused came to her house at about 2:00 O' clock at night; her son Jayantibhai was sleeping on a cot outside the house. The complainant stated that when she opened the door, she saw that accused had thrown the body of Chhitubhai on the cot of her son, therefore she started shouting; while accused left the place. According to the complainant accused stated that they would return by bringing the Doctor. Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined 5.3 The complainant stated that accused had brought the body of Chhitubhai in the Jeep of Somabhai and had placed it outside their house, and when accused had come there, Govindbhai Somabhai was also present there. She gave the cause for dispute, as the brother had three days prior given a knife blow to Hasu Bhika and on that suspicion all of them jointly had done to death his brother.
5.4 The version of complainant is that she is an eye witness to the incident. The accused were armed with sword and knife. However, no such injury has been corroborated in the deposition of the Doctor, who stated that the injuries were simple in nature. The conduct of the complainant becomes doubtful. Though, she had seen the brother being beaten by accused, she has not taken any interest to inform the police. The incident, she alleged, had taken place at 1:30 at night. Govindbhai had come to call her, Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined thereafter she had left with Govindbhai towards his house and deceased was beaten near the house of Govindbhai who is brother-in-law of the complainant who was at home with son, and his wife had gone to Jaghadia. According to Govindbhai all accused had brought Chhitubhai in their Jeep and dropped him near his house. They had removed Chhitubhai from the jeep and were sitting at a distance of 15 to 20 feet, thereafter he was awoken.
5.5 The fact does not get corroboration as to how he at 1:30 could reach the house of the complainant and inform that accused were beating Chhitubhai. The complainant had accompanied Govindbhai. While the said fact of seeing the incident and accused assaulting deceased with knife and sword is not stated by Govindbhai. On the contrary, Govindbhai had denied the said fact.
Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined 5.6 The contrary version now has been brought to the notice of the Court is that the husband of the complainant, who was examined as P.W.7 - Kalidas Ahir, gives a version that about 12 O' clock, his brother-in-law (Sadubhai) Govindbhai had come to call him. He asked his wife to go and inquire, as he was not well, and after an hour his wife returned back and when inquired from her she stated that Somabhai and his men had beaten Chhitubhai. She gave the name of all accused and thereafter they slept in the house. 5.7 P.W.7 husband of the complainant further stated that at about 2:30 night, the doors were knocked and when he opened the door, he saw that deceased Chhitubhai was made to sleep on the cot of his son Jayantibhai, who was sleeping out side the house. The case of all the witnesses, who projected themselves as eye witnesses brings contrary version on record.
Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined
6. Son of the complainant Jayantibhai Kalidas was examined as P.W.8. According to him, he was sleeping on the cot outside the house, and because of some movement, he suddenly woke up and saw his uncle Chhitubhai's dead body beside him on the cot. The son could depose that all nine accused were present there. They had come in a Jeep. Somabhai had knocked the door of their house to awake his parents. The mother inquired as to why Chhitubhai was beaten so harshly, to that son (P.W.8) said that Somabhai told that he would go to call for a Doctor. He waited for certain time but none appeared, therefore, mother as well as Govindbhai went to police station.
7. The conduct of accused, as has been brought on record by the witnesses becomes unbelievable. The evidence of the witnesses runs contrary to each other, which has been rightly appreciated and observed by the learned Trial Court Judge. The learned Judge has not believed the witnesses, Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined since the evidence of the witnesses do not corroborate each other. The time of incident does not match. The injuries alleged were not possible with the alleged weapon. The Doctor had opined that the injury 1/A in Column No.17 could be caused by sharp weapon, while the charge framed against the accused is of causing injury with the sticks and wooden log.
8. The conduct of the complainant as well as Govindbhai as brother-in-law as well as husband are unnatural. The sister has not disclosed the real fact. It would not be believed that sister would have left the brother there unattended even after seeing all accused beating brother Chhitubhai. The fact that even after the incident, they all slept in the house unworried about the injuries is an unnatural conduct, which could lead to the inference that real incident has not been brought on record. There is suppression of facts. The genesis of the incident Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined has been deliberately hidden by the witnesses.
9. 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 possible and probable course left open was to grant benefit of doubt to the appellants..."
10. 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 Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined 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 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."Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/836/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined
11. 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 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..."
12. In view of the observations made herein above, we do not find any reason to dislodge the findings of the learned Trial Court Judge. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Record and Proceeding be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Pankaj/10 Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:21:26 IST 2025