Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dineshbhai Kadavabhai Khasarya on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 350 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
=================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DINESHBHAI KADAVABHAI KHASARYA & ORS.
=================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4,5
URJA B DAVE(7461) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,6
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 22.06.2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 182 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, whereby, the respondents herein were acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell may be stated as follow:
2.1 The offence took place on 16.04.2007 as per the prosecution version. Prior to the said date of offence, an accident took place when PW-2 was driving a vehicle and in the said accident, father of accused No. 2 (A2) and another person were injured. So, A2, bore grudge against PW-2 as his father sustained injuries in the accident that occurred due to the negligent driving of PW-2. Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined 2.2 So, it is stated, that on 16.04.2007 at about 9:00 a.m. in the morning when PW-2 and PW-6, who is his uncle, were coming in a Jeep, while PW-2 was driving the Jeep and PW-6 was sitting on the backside of the Jeep and when they reached near the bus-stop of the village, that accused Nos. 1 to 6 (A1 to A6) together waylaid the Jeep and A2 caught hold of the collar of PW-2, who was driving the Jeep and pulled him out of the Jeep and thereafter, A1 to A4 and A6, who are holding sticks and A5, who is holding an iron pipe, attacked PW-2 with the said weapons and beat him and caused injuries to him and when PW-6 tried to intervene, that they also tried to attack him and out of fear, he ran away from the said place. He went to the house of PW-2 and informed about the same to his son, who is PW-7 and both of them came to the scene of offence and they found PW-2 in unconscious state lying on the road and after they came, the accused left the scene of offence and went away. It is stated that some cash and a gold chain, which are kept in the Jeep in a bag, belonging to PW-2, was also taken away by force by the accused. 2.3 Thereafter, PW-6 and PW-7 took PW-2 to the hospital. On the Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined intimation given by the hospital staff, police visited the hospital. PW-6 has lodged a report with the police and it was registered as a case against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The case was investigated. Thereafter, the statement of the injured PW-2 was recorded by the police. The injured, who was in the hospital was discharged. The accused were arrested on 28.05.2007 during the course of the investigation. It is stated that on the disclosure statement given by them that they would show the place where the sticks and iron pipe were hidden if the police accompany them, that they led the police and the mediator who is examined as PW-5 to the place where the weapons were hidden and at the instance of the accused, it is stated, that the police have recovered and seized the sticks and iron pipe in the presence of the mediator. The scene of offence was also observed in the presence of mediators who are examined as PW-3 and PW-4. After completion of investigation, police laid the Charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
2.4 After the accused made their appearance in the trial Court, Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined charges for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 504, 506 and 427 of IPC were framed against them. They denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
2.5 During the course of the trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-10 witnesses and got marked five exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.
2.6 At the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for any of the charges levelled against them and acquitted them of the said charges by the impugned judgment. 2.7 Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal questioning the legality and validity of the said judgment.
3. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Krina Calla for the appellant - Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined State and Ms. Urja B. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 expired during the course of appeal and the appeal against them stood abated.
4. Although, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-10 witnesses to substantiate its case against the accused, only the evidence of PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7 is relevant in the context to consider as only PW-2 and PW-6 are the eye-witnesses to the incident and PW-7 subsequently reached the scene of offence, after the incident took place. All other witnesses are only the panch witnesses for the arrest and recovery of the crime weapons and the observation of scene of offence and official witnesses who are police personnel and the doctor who examined the injured.
5. As per the facts narrated supra, the offence took place in a broad daylight at about 9:00 a.m. and that too, in a busy locality near a bus-stop. Therefore, the scene of offence is not an isolated place and as the incident is said to have taken place near the bus-stop, it is a busy locality. Prosecution did not cite any witnesses from the Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined locality where the alleged offence took place, who would be the independent witnesses and the probable witnesses to speak whether any such incident has actually taken place or not. As the offence took place in a busy locality near a bus-stop and during the day time, definitely, there would be independent witnesses available at the scene of offence who might have witnessed the incident, if it has really taken place. No explanation is offered by the prosecution for not examining any of the inmates of the said locality or other independent witnesses at the scene of offence. Therefore, their non- examination is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution. 5.1 So, there remains only the evidence of PW-2 and PW-6. According to the prosecution version, PW-2 was driving the Jeep and PW-6 was sitting on the backside of the Jeep when the accused waylaid the Jeep. In the FIR that was lodged by PW-6 at the earliest point of time, immediately after the occurrence, he has mentioned in it that the accused have shown their hands and stopped the vehicle. But contrary to the said version mentioned in the FIR, both, the PW- 2 and PW-6 stated in their evidence that the accused have shown a Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined stick and they have stopped the vehicle. So, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-6 when compared with the contents of the FIR, which is of the earliest version regarding the manner in which the vehicle was stopped by the accused. This inconsistency in their evidence with the contents of the FIR not only renders their testimony doubtful but it affects the veracity of the testimony given by them in the Court. Further, PW-6 stated that when he tried to intervene when the accused have been attacking the PW-2 that he ran away out of fear. So, it is evident that he did not actually witnessed accused attacking PW-2. According to him, he ran away and went to the house of PW-2 and brought his son PW-7 to the scene of offence and at that time both PW-6 and PW-7 found PW-2 in unconscious state on the road. So, PW-6 could not give the independent overt acts as to who beat PW-2 and how they beat him. 5.2 Now, it is significant to note that PW-2, who is the injured although stated that A2 sat on his chest and other accused beat him indiscriminately, he has admitted in his cross-examination that he does not have left hand and left leg. Drawing our attention to the Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined said admission and the evidence given by PW-2 in his cross- examination that he does not have the left hand and the left leg, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that when his left hand and left leg were amputated and he does not have the upper and lower limbs on one side that it is not possible for him to drive the Jeep and the trial Court also, in its judgment, clearly held that when he does not have the left hand and left leg, that he could not drive the Jeep. So, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the version of the prosecution and also the evidence of PW-2 and PW-6 that when PW-2 was driving the Jeep that the accused waylaid the Jeep and attacked him, is absolutely false. We find considerable force in the said contention of learned counsel for the respondents. When PW-2 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he does not have the left hand and left leg, his evidence that when he was driving the Jeep that the accused intercepted the said Jeep and attacked him, cannot be believed. 5.3 Further, the cash and the gold chain alleged to have been stolen from the Jeep was not recovered by the police in this case. Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined PW-2 also did not explain in his evidence as to why he was carrying the cash and gold in a bag in the Jeep. Therefore, it is doubtful whether he was really carrying any such cash and gold in a bag in the Jeep.
5.4 Even though the sticks and the iron pipe said to have been used in commission of the offence were recovered by the police on the alleged disclosure statement said to have been given by the accused at the time of their arrest in the presence of the mediator, examined as PW-5, it is relevant to note that PW-5 did not support the said case of the prosecution. He did not depose that the accused gave any such disclosure statement and that, he led him along with police to the place where the said weapons were hidden and that, at the instance of the accused that the said weapons were recovered. So, the recovery of weapons is not proved in this case. 5.5 Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the charges levelled against them with acceptable legal and cogent evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt. There are several infirmities in the case of the prosecution which Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined makes the entire prosecution story shrouded in high suspicion. 5.6 The trial Court, after considering the said evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the said evidence on record arrived at a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. Upon considering the said evidence on record and on reappraisal of the same, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court and we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Therefore, the impugned judgment is sustainable under law and it calls for no interference in this appeal. So, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.
6. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court. Bail bond shall stand discharged. R&P be transmitted back to the trial Court, forthwith.
[ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ] [ D. M. Vyas, J. ] hiren/SB-I-1tss11925@16:05 Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025