Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Karsan Bhimabhai Gohil on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 15/04/2026
Pronounced On : 29/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1532 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KARSAN BHIMABHAI GOHIL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. JAY G THAKER(9944) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.05.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No.30 of 2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court is that on 13.03.2007 at about 12:00 hours, near Khandeka Dam, the accused, by making unlawful assembly and in collusion with each other, due to land issues, exchanged hot words with the complainant, assaulted him with iron pipe and wooden stick, fractured on the hands and legs, threatened him to kill him and abused on his caste and thereby committed an offence as alleged. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the respondent-accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.30 of 2008. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4.1 In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment, which are as under :
Sr. Particulars Exh. Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined No. No. 1. Arjan Kama Gohil 11 2. Arjan Gokal Meriya 14 3. Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq 15 4. Vershi Bhoja Dodiya 19 5. Osman Ibrahim 20 6. Maheshpuri Zaverpuri Goswami 21 7. Martaji Shakraji Ninama 24 8. Nitesh Pratapray Pandya 25 9. Kanaiylal Shakrabhai Amin 27 10. Dr. Devendragiri Kirtigiri Gosai 34 11. Dr. Kishor Asumal Lalchandani 43 4.2 The prosecution has produced 7 documentary
evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment, which are as under :
Sr. Particulars Exh.
No. No.
1. Complaint 23
2. Panchanama of scene of offence 12
3. Arrest Panchanama 13
4. Yadi for lodging offence 22
5. Weapon Prohibition Notification 26
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
6. MLC Certificate 35
7. Injury Certificate 44, 45
& 46
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court :
8.1 The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint, which is produced vide Exh.23, wherein the complainant - Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq stated that on 13.03.2007 at 11.00 a.m., when he, along with his brother Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Osman, were going towards their field at that time, son of Bhimabhai Jetha, whose name he did not know, along with him, there was a lady, whom also he did not know, and other two unknown persons were there. At that time, all the aforesaid four people had come towards the complainant and his brother - Osman and the aforesaid unknown four persons had threatened the complainant and his brother as to why they had come at the field as the said field belongs to them and why they should come to the said field; at that time, the complainant and his brother informed that the said field belongs to them and that they will come over there; and that thereafter the aforesaid unknown four people got excited and started abusing the complainant, to which, the complainant stopped them from abusing, but at that moment, the complainant was assaulted with iron tommy and the wooden stick (a thick wooden stick) on his left hand wrist, on the left hand side of his head, right hand fist and on left leg. At that time, his brother - Osman intervened and thereafter the aforesaid four persons gave threats to his life. Thereafter, the complainant was sent to the hospital for treatment and the complaint was filed when the complainant was in the hospital.
8.2 The complainant - Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq has been examined as P.W.3, vide Exh.15, wherein he states that on Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined the day of the incident, he, along with his brother - Osman, had gone to his field and over there, accused No.2 -
Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Karia, along with Lakhubhai Bhimabhai, was present and there was one another lady, who is a wife of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai, were there; and that they were putting fence on the said property; and that the complainant asked them as to why they were placing fence, at that time, the aforesaid Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Karia (accused No.2) and Lakhubhai Bhimabhai and that unknown lady, who is a wife of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai, had stated that the complainant that he had got to do nothing with the said field and so saying, they started assaulting the complainant. Accused No.2 - Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Karia had assaulted the complainant with an iron pipe on the left hand and he also assaulted with a stick on the right hand and left leg. Lakhubhai Bhimabhai had assaulted the complainant on the shoulder. At that time, the brother of the complainant viz., Osman intervened and accused No.2 had threatened the complainant's life. The fact remains that the name of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai is not stated in the complaint and in the complaint, the complainant talks about being assaulted with iron tommy and wooden log. In the deposition before the Court, he states that accused No.2 had assaulted him with a pipe and stick. Therefore, there is clear contradictions in the statement given by the complainant at the time of Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined filing the complaint and deposition before the Court with respect to the weapon that was allegedly used at the time of the offence.
Moreover, in the complaint, the complainant states that he was not knowing as to who the said persons were and who had assaulted him; and that who were the four persons who had assaulted him, but in the deposition before the Court, the complainant states that he has been assaulted by three persons and had given the name of accused No.2 - Rameshbhai, Lakhubhaibhai Bhimabhaibhai and wife of Lakhubhaibhai Bhimabhaibhai.
8.3 The brother of the complainant viz., Osman Ibrahim, who is alleged to be present with the complainant at the time of offence, has been examined as P.W.5, vide Exh.20. He has, in his deposition, stated that at the time of the alleged offence, he was present with the complainant and accused No.1 - Karshan Bhimabhaibhai Gohil was holding a pipe and accused No.2 - Rameshbhai was holding a stick and accused No.1 - Karshanbhai has assaulted the complainant with a pipe on his head and accused No.2 - Rameshbhai has assaulted the complainant with a stick on his hand, on his shoulder and on the legs. He has also stated that the police had taken his statement and they had initially gone to Vagad Welfare Hospital at Rapar and thereafter had gone to Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Bhachau. He has also stated that the field i.e. place of offence, has already been sold by him. He does not have any document to prove that the said property belongs to him and he has also stated that the complaint was taken at Rapar Government Hospital and the said complaint was given by his brother i.e. the complainant (Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq); and that he was present at the time when the said complaint was taken; and that he and his brother i.e. the complainant
- both had narrated the facts in the said complaint. He has stated that from his birth, he has stayed at Village : Rapar; and that the accused are also staying at the same village; and that he knew the accused even before the alleged incident. He has also denied the fact that at the time when the said complaint was mentioned, the names of any accused were not given by them.
If his deposition is taken into consideration, the said deposition is contrary to what has been stated in the complaint. In the complaint, the complainant stated that four unknown persons were present at the time of incident, who had assaulted him; and that though, as per his version, at the time of offence, accused No.2 - Rameshbhai, Lakhubhaibhai Bhimabhaibhai and wife of Lakhubhaibhai Bhimabhaibhai were present, he does not give the name of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai.
Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined 8.4 The prosecution has thereafter produced the panchanama of scene of offence vide Exh.12 and the arrest panchanama vide Exh.13.
The panch witness - Arjanbhai Kamabhai Gohil, who was the panch witness of panchanama at Exhs.12 and 13, has been examined as P.W.1, vide Exh.11. He has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
The prosecution has examined Arjanbhai Gokalbhai Meriya as P.W.2, vide Exh.14, who was the panch witness of the panchanama of scene of offence. He has also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
The prosecution has also examined Vershibhai Bhojabhai Dodiya, who was the panch witness of panchanama at Exh.13 i.e. the arrest panchanama. He has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. 8.5 The prosecution has examined the Head Constable viz., Maheshpuri Zaverpuri Goswami as P.W.6, vide Exh.21, who had taken the statement of the complainant in the hospital, which is produced vide Exh.22.
The prosecution has examined Martaji Shakraji Ninama, A.S.I., Rapar, as P.W.7, vide Exh.24, to whom the doctor has given the telephonic intimation.
The officer working at the Collector Office viz., Nitish Pratapbhai Pandya has been examined as P.W.8, vide Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Exh.25 with respect to the notification under the Bombay Police Act, which is produced vide Exh.26.
The Investigating Officer i.e. the Dy.S.P.- in-charge of Bhachau Division viz., Kanaiylal Shakrabhai Amin has been examined as P.W.9, vide Exh.27. In his deposition, he has stated that in the complaint, it is stated that four persons had assaulted the complainant, but at the time of investigation, it transpires that the assault was by using an iron tommy as a weapon and it is also true that the alleged weapon has not been recovered. He has also stated that the complainant has sold the land to one Naranbhai Mahadevbhai; and that on the date of the incident, the complainant did not own any land; and that the land, on which the alleged offence took place, was given to the brother of the accused for cultivation. He has also stated that the complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the accused against the complainant; and that under his investigation, it was also found that the complainant had assaulted the accused by pelting stones; and that the complainant had trespassed on the field in question. 8.6 The Medical Officer, CHC Rapar viz., Dr.Devendragiri Kirtigiri Gosai has been examined as P.W.10, vide Exh.34. The history given by the complainant to the Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined said doctor states that he was assaulted by the stone and a stick. The certificate to that effect has been produced vide Exh.35; and that the names of the accused were not given to the said doctor.
The prosecution has thereafter examined Dr.Kishor Ashumal Lalchandani as P.W.11, vide Exh.43, who was the Medical Officer at Vagad Welfare Hospital. The complainant also does not give the names of the accused to the said doctor. The certificate issued by the said doctor is produced vide Exh.44.
It has also come on the record that the complainant was admitted for 15-20 days in the said hospital for treatment. The history given to the said doctor was that the complainant was assaulted by a stick and by an iron pipe. Therefore, there are lot of contradictions in the evidence that has been presented by the prosecution. The complainant in the complaint states that he has been assaulted by an iron tommy and by a stick, by unknown persons. In his deposition, he has stated that he has been assaulted by accused No.2 - Rameshbhai with an iron pipe and a stick. The brother of the complainant, who has been examined as P.W.5 (Exh.20) states that accused No.1 - Karshanbhai assaulted the complainant with a pipe and accused No.2 had assaulted the complainant with a stick. The Medical Officer who has been examined as P.W.10 (Exh.34) states that the Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined history given to the said doctor stated that the complainant was assaulted by pelting stones and by a stick; and that the history given to the Medical Officer at Vagad Welfare Hospital (P.W.11, vide Exh.43) states that the complainant was assaulted with a stick and with an iron pipe. Therefore, there are lot of contradictions in the statements given by the complainant, and the prosecution has not been able to prove that any such incident had taken place. Moreover, though the complainant states the name of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai, who was allegedly present at the time of offence, no offence against the said person is registered.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.
10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93:
(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined
14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed 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:Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 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 Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined 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. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.
18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) SRILATHA Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026