State Of Gujarat vs Janyabhai Govindbhai Ganvit
2025 Latest Caselaw 1761 Guj

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Janyabhai Govindbhai Ganvit on 2 August, 2025

Author: Gita Gopi

Bench: Gita Gopi

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.A/1966/2004                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1966 of 2004


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                      and
                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                   Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                           Versus
                                                JANYABHAI GOVINDBHAI GANVIT
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
                              and
                              HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                                        Date : 02/08/2025

                                            ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)

1. The challenge is given by the State to the judgment of

acquittal dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Navsari in Sessions Case

No.33 of 2003. The trial was against the accused under Section

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1966/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025

undefined

302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). The learned Trial

Court Judge observed that the offence against the accused was

not proved as per the charge-sheet and thus, found that the

prosecution has failed to establish the case and on that ground

acquitted the accused.

2. The briefly stated the facts of the case as could be noted

from the charge-sheet was that deceased - Dhawaliyabhai

Janubhai Bhalkaya had grudge with regard to the land.

Therefore, on 12/4/2003, at about 06 : 00 o'clock, when the

deceased was at his land, at Bhayakhala village, at that time the

accused had given him blow on the head and on the left side of

the waist with hard stones and stick. Because of the said injury,

the deceased died on 17.04.2003 during treatment. Therefore,

the accused was charged under Section 302 of I.P.C.

3. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

the appellant - State has referred to the depositions of the doctor

as well as the complainant and the wife of the deceased,

specifically stressing on the opinion of the doctor as well as the

column no. 17 of the postmortem note. She has submitted that

the intention of the accused was to murder the deceased as they

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1966/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025

undefined

had dispute with regard to the land. She has further submitted

that the learned Trial Court Judge had erred in not appreciating

the evidence of the complainant, who had seen the deceased

sustaining the injury on head. Further, the deposition of the wife

also clarifies that it was the accused, who had hit on the body of

the deceased and that injury had become fatal to cause the

death.

4. Heard Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Assistant Government

Pleader. Perused the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court

Judge.

5. The learned Trial Court Judge has referred to the medical

evidence of the deceased, which is the postmortem note. The

Doctor has very specifically noted that the death was due to

cardio-respiratory cessation due to asphyxia caused by

strangulation. The cause was the strangulation to the accused.

The learned Trial Court Judge has referred to the deposition of

the complainant - Patel Baishyabhai Vadyabhai (Valalbhai) at

Exhibit - 31, who had deposed that the deceased came to him at

about 07 : 00 o'clock in the morning and informed him that the

accused had beaten him and showed the blood oozing out from

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1966/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025

undefined

the head of the deceased. However, the complainant had not

joined him to take him to the hospital. The fact, as could be

noted, is that the cause of death and the evidence of the

complainant are not corroborating with each other as the injury

which the complainant had seen, was on the head of the

deceased and blood was oozing out from his head, while the

cause of death was due to cardio-respiratory cessation due to

asphyxia caused by strangulation. This does not bring any

consistency in the evidence of the Doctor as well as the

complainant, the wife of the deceased. Further, the complainant

had stated that he had seen the deceased in the morning at

about 7:00 o'clock, while it is stated in the deposition of the wife

- Dudhiben Dhawalyabhai at exhibit 34 that it was at 12 : 00

o'clock in the afternoon, the deceased Dhawaliya had come there

and had informed her that the accused had beaten him

incessantly and thereby, he sustained injury on head. The

complainant as well as the wife of the deceased had not eye

witnessed the incident. Nothing has been brought on record to

even create a circumstantial evidence to prove that the deceased

was strangulated by the accused. The brother of the deceased -

Khandubhai Janubhai Bhalakaya at exhibit 38 further does not

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1966/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025

undefined

disclose any incident rather he says that when the deceased had

come there, there was no talk between them. The learned Trial

Court Judge has, on overall appreciation of the evidence,

observed that the evidences of the complainant as well as the

wife of the deceased and the brother of the deceased do not

corroborate with one another and also the injury sustained by

the deceased. The cause of death is strangulation where none of

the witnesses has given such an evidence. Further, if the cause

of death was due to cardio-respiratory cessation due to asphyxia

caused by strangulation, then there would not have been any

possibility of deceased meeting with any of the witnesses after

such an injury. Hence, the learned trial Judge has rightly come

to the conclusion.

6. In the case of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2024

(3) SCC 164], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"61. In a case of acquittal, if the trial court's view is a possible or plausible view, then the Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in interfering with it. It is the settled legal position that there is presumption of innocence and that presumption is further fortified with the acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal unless it comes to a clear conclusion that the judgment of the trial court is utterly perverse and, on the basis of the evidence on record, no other view is plausible or possible than the one taken by the Appellate Court or the High Court."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1966/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025

undefined

6.1 In the case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka

reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

as under:

"8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment [State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591] rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC can be summarised as follows:

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."

7. This Court does not find any infirmity in the analysis of the

evidence. Nothing could be brought on record to show that any

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1966/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025

undefined

contrary view to be taken. There is no patent illegality in the

conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court Judge.

8. In view of the above discussions and observations, the

present appeals stands dismissed. The Record and Proceedings

be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.

(GITA GOPI,J)

(P. M. RAVAL, J) MOHMMEDSHAHID