Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kathi Anakbhai Jijibhai on 6 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KATHI ANAKBHAI JIJIBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN H. RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 06/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined as "Cr.P.C"), against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1991 dated 21st October, 2000.
2. FACTS IN NUTSHELL OF THE PROSECUTION ARE AS UNDER:
2.1. On 15th December, 1990, at about 11.30 hours, at Rajula Town in Amreli District, near the Court area, accused No. 1 Anakbhai Jijibhai Kathi, No. 2 Babubhai Dadabhai Kathi, No. 3 Aapabhai Amrabhai Kathi, and No. 4 Jorubhai Dadabhai Kathi had gathered with a common intention to commit an offence, out of which accused No. 1 Kathi Anakbhai Jijibhai and accused No. 2 Kathi Babubhai Dadabhai caught hold of the deceased, whereas, accused No. 3 Kathi Aapabhai Amrabhai and accused No. 4 Kathi Jorubhai Dadabhai started inflicting injuries to the complainant-
deceased Arjanbhai Vallabhbhai Patel with iron pipes indiscriminately on his legs and head and thus, committed his murder.
2.2. Pursuant to which, the deceased complainant-Arjanbhai Vallabhbhai Patel lodged a complaint before Rajula Police Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined Station on 15th December, 1990, while he was admitted at Rajula Government Hospital. The said complaint was registered as FIR C.R. No. I-107 of 1990 under the provisions of Sections 302, 307, 325 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.") and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. P.S.I. Shri N. B. Jadeja of the Rajula Police Station conducted the investigation, arrested the accused persons and having found ample material against the accused, filed a chargesheet before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
3. The learned Magistrate, after handing over the relevant case papers, committed the case under the provisions of Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, since the said case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
4. Pursuant to the committal vide Exhibit 2 on 11th August, 2000, charges came to be framed under Sections 302, 325, 323 and 114 of the I.P.C. and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, which were read over and after recording the plea, the accused having denied the charges, prayed for trial. Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined
5. At the trial, to bring home the charges, the prosecution had relied upon the following oral as well as documentary evidence:
ORAL EVIDENCE Sr. Particulars Exh.
No. 1. Panch Witness Babubhai Khodabhai Babara 12 2. Panch Witness Babubhai Mensibhai Koli 14
3. Dr. Palabhai Polabhai Muchhadiya, Medical 16 Officer, Community Health Centre, Rajula
4. Dr. Vinayakrao Vasudevrao Patil, Assistant 19 Professor, Medical College, Ahmedabad 5. Witness Jayantibhai Bhikhabhai Luhar 26 6. Witness Karimbhai Ismailbhai Kureshi 25 7. Witness Mahamadali Devjibhai Khoja 27 8. Witness Ashokbhai Premjibhai Luhar 28
9. Mahendrasinh Chudasama, Police Constable, 29 Rajula Police Station
10. Jilubhai Vajesinh, Police Constable, Rajula 30 Police Station 11. Witness Nathabhai Bhikhabhai Patel 31
12. Witness Navinchandra Manilal Shah, Taluka 32 Executive Magistrate, Rajula
13. Umarbhai Ismailbhai Juneja, Police Head- 34 Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined Constable, Rajula Police Station
14. Bachubhai Arjanbhai Chauhan, Deputy 50 Mamlatdar, Rajula
15. N. B. Jadeja, P.S.I., Rajula Police Station 57 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. Particulars Exh.
No. 1. Panchnama of the arrest of accused Apabhai 9 Amrabhai and accused Jorubhai Dadabhai, along with recovery of muddamal
2. Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Rajula, 10 upon examination of Jorubhai Dadabhai 3. Inquest Panchnama 11 4. Panchnama of the place of offence 13
5. Panchnama regarding the blood-stained clothes 15 of the deceased produced by Patel Nathabhai Bhikhabhai
6. Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Rajula, 17 upon examination of Arjanbhai Vallabhbhai
7. Receipt regarding handing over of the dead body 20 of the deceased to Nathabhai Bhikhabhai 8. Map of the place of offence prepared by the 21 Circle Inspector, Rajula Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined 9. Receipt of muddamal sent to the Chemical 22 Analyzer for examination, along with copy thereof
10. Report of the Chemical Analyzer, along with the 23 Serology Division report and forwarding letter
11. Post-mortem note of the deceased Arjanbhai 24 Vallabhbhai prepared by the Medical Officer, Ahmedabad
12. Panchnama of the Test Identification Parade 33 held in the presence of the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Rajula
13. Yadi made by the P.S.I., Rajula, to the P.S.O., 35 Rajula after recording the complaint
14. Yadi made by the Medical Officer, Rajula, to the 36 P.S.I., Rajula
15. Extract of Station Diary Entry No. 11 of Rajula 37 Police Station
16. F.I.R. in Crime Register No. II-182/90 of Rajula 38 Police Station
17. Copy of the F.I.R. in Crime Register No. II- 39 189/90 of Rajula Police Station
18. Panchnama of the arrest of accused Anakbhai 40 Jijibhai and accused Babubhai Dadabhai, along with the panchnama of their physical condition
19. Proclamation regarding prohibition of arms 41 Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Amreli 20. Complaint of Arjanbhai Vallabhbhai 58
21. Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, 59 Bhavnagar, upon examination of Arjanbhai Vallabhbhai
6. After the completion of the trial, further statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. They denied the evidence. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence.
7. After giving an opportunity to the learned Advocate for the prosecution as well as the accused, the Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment and order, gave benefit of doubt to the accused persons and thus, the impugned judgment and order came to be passed, which is under challenge before this Court by way of the present appeal.
8. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
8.1. Mr. Rohan H. Raval, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, would submit that despite there being ample direct and indirect evidence on record connecting the accused persons with the Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined alleged crime, the Trial Court has erroneously given the benefit of doubt.
8.2. That the Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the deceased had himself lodged a complaint at Exhibit 58 before the police and the Trial Court has materially erred in not believing the said complaint, though it is in the nature of a dying declaration.
8.3. That the dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Magistrate, is also proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Trial Judge has given the benefit of doubt on assumptions and presumptions and thus, it is argued to allow the present appeal.
8.4. Making the above submissions, Mr. Raval, learned APP, would humbly request this Court to allow the present appeal.
9. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
9.1. Per contra, Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, has vehemently opposed the present appeal and has argued that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, in its correct perspective and this is not a case of clear-cut acquittal. Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined However, the benefit of doubt is given, more particularly when there are various discrepancies with regards to the FIR, the statements of the witnesses, as well as the dying declaration and therefore, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and thus, it is argued to reject the present appeal.
10. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. We have gone through the record and proceedings of the case, as well as we have given our considered thought to the impugned judgment and order granting the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
11. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to the recent decision passed by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another V/s. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, wherein, taking note of its earlier dictum, it was observed and held as follows:
"23. Recently, in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka [Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 535] , a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus : (SCC pp. 163-64, paras 38-
41) "38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the Trial Court.Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29) '29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42) "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 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 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 Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined 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." '
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] , this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) '8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.'
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
(emphasis supplied) Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined
12. Tested on the anvil of the aforestated principles, this Court is in concurrence with the findings given by the Trial Court for the following reasons:
(i). None of the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
(ii). The panch witnesses of the Test Identification Parade have not been examined.
(iii). The dying declaration is alleged to have been recorded at
13.05 hours and was completed allegedly at 13.10 hours. However, as per the deposition of P.S.I. Shri N. B. Jadeja in his cross-examination, he has denied that he had inquired with regards to any recording of the dying declaration before lodging the complaint.
(iv). The complaint was recorded from 13.10 hours to 13.40 hours on the same day. If that be so, the finding of the Trial Court is perfectly correct as to how the dying declaration could have been recorded prior to the lodging of the complaint when the police officer who had jotted down the complaint was not aware of the fact of the recording of the dying declaration or not. Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined
(v). In cross-examination of the P.S.I., he has admitted the fact that he came to know that no dying declaration was recorded prior to the recording of the complaint, which falsifies the factum of the recording of the dying declaration prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., more particularly in view of the scoring off the time of the sending yadi from 13.45 to 12.45.
(vi). It is also required to be noted that while recording the complaint, the P.S.I. had not taken the sense of the doctor whether the deceased complainant was in a fit state of mind, or whether he was able to speak and give a statement to the facts or not. Under the circumstances also, the lodging of the complaint itself creates serious doubt.
(vii). The writing of the Magistrate in the dying declaration is by a different pen and is also coupled with the fact that the yadi sent for recording of the dying declaration to the Executive Magistrate was scored out by writing "12.45 hours" instead of "13.45 hours", though there is no counter-signature to such scoring off. Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined
(viii). The factum of Police Constable Mahendrasinh Tapubha Chudasama and Police Constable Jilubha Vajesinh, who have deposed vide Exhibits 29 and 30, respectively, have stated that as per the deceased, Anakbhai and other three unknown persons had inflicted injuries. However, as per the dying declaration and the complaint, the role of Anakbhai is with regards to holding him and not inflicting any injuries.
13. Based on the aforestated facts and circumstances and re-
appreciation of evidence, a serious doubt is created with regards to lodging of the F.I.R., recording of the dying declaration and the role attributed to the accused persons, more particularly, when the two persons were not named by the complainant-deceased himself. Under the circumstances, when two views are possible and when a serious doubt is created upon the story of the prosecution, which creates a dent in the prosecution's theory, this Court does not find it fit to interfere in the present acquittal appeal and hence, the present appeal deserves to be rejected.
14. This appeal is found to be meritless and accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/5/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1991 dated 21st October, 2000, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.
15. The Record and Proceedings shall be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) (P. M. RAVAL, J) NILESH Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:00:57 IST 2026