[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dahyabhai Jagmalbhai Nadoda on 10 December, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 of 2001
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 77 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DAHYABHAI JAGMALBHAI NADODA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RONAK B RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR SALVI on behalf of MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
Criminal Revision Application No.77 of 2001
MR ROHAN VAGHELA on behalf of MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA for the
Applicant(s) No.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 10/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 20.12.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur in Sessions Case No.51 of 1999, whereby
the respondents-accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
under Sections 392, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
("IPC" for short), the appellant - State has preferred the present Criminal
Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the
Code" for short). The applicant - wife of the deceased has also filed
Criminal Revision Application No.77 of 2001 under Section 401 of the
Code, seeking enhancement of sentence or, in the alternative, setting
aside the impugned acquittal order. Both the matters arise out of the same
impugned judgment and order and are, therefore, being disposed of by
this common judgment.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal and
revision are as under:
2.1. On 03.06.1997, the Viramgam Rural Police Station received
information through a telephone message from the MLA regarding a dead
body lying near Khengariya Patia. Upon inquiry, it was found to be the
dead body of the deceased, who was proceeding to Deesa for recovery of
an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- on behalf of Dinesh & Company. The
prosecution case, in short, is that the deceased was standing at the S.T.
Bus Stand, Rajkot, with the said amount in a suitcase. Respondent No.1,
who knew the deceased, along with respondent No.2, hatched a
conspiracy to rob him. They offered the deceased a lift in their jeep
(No.GJ-02-M-1938) under the pretext of proceeding to Deesa. En route,
near Khengariya village, respondent No.1 inflicted a hammer blow on the
deceased's head, and with the aid of a nylon string, they strangled him to
death. To destroy evidence, they poured diesel on the body and set it
ablaze, besides looting the suitcase containing Rs.4,50,000/-. The FIR
was registered at Viramgam Rural Police Station under Sections 302, 201
and 174(b) of the Code read with relevant provisions of the IPC, bearing
C.R. No.8/97, later altered to include Sections 392, 396 and 120B IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
2.2. The respondents-accused were arrested on 27.11.1997 and
remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, a charge-sheet was
filed on 06.02.1998 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Viramgam,
registered as Criminal Case No.145/98, under Sections 120B, 396, 302
and 201 IPC. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was triable by the
Court of Session, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur vide order dated 21.03.1998 and registered
as Sessions Case No.51/1999.
2.3. The learned Sessions Court framed charges against the
respondents-accused under the aforesaid sections. The respondents-
accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Upon conclusion of the
prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Court put various
incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondents-
accused for their explanation under Section 313 of the Code. In their
further statements, the respondents-accused denied all incriminating
circumstances as false and stated that they were innocent and had been
falsely implicated. After examining the oral and documentary evidence
and hearing submissions from both sides, the learned Sessions Court
recorded findings in favour of the respondents-accused and acquitted
them of all charges by the impugned judgment and order dated
20.12.2000.
3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before
the learned Sessions Court. During the course of the trial, the prosecution
examined a total of 27 witnesses. The details of the oral and documentary
evidence are as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
~:: Oral Evidence ::~
Sr. No. Particular Exh.
4 Kishorbhai Somabhai - PW-4 (Panch Witness) 17
Witness)
9 Popatlal Chelabhai Vaghela - PW-9 (Sanand) 28
Witness, Sanand)
11 Batakumar Manubhai Makhija - PW-11 (Panch 31
Witness)
17 Vallabhbhai Dharmashibhai Phaldu - PW-17 40
19 Popatlal Rupaji Mewada - PW-19 (Panch Witness) 42
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
24 Devshankar Ratilal Trivedi - PW-24 (Sanand) 56
(Investigation Officer)
(Complainant/Investigation Officer)
~:: Documentary Evidence ::~
Sr. No. Particular Exh.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
appellant - State submitted that the impugned judgment requires
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
interference, primarily relying upon the circumstantial evidence chain,
including the recovery of the jeep, the post-mortem report establishing
homicidal death by strangulation, and the recoveries of cash from the
respondents-accused. It was contended that the learned Sessions Court
erred in discarding the prosecution case on hyper-technical grounds and
acquitting the respondents-accused, warranting reversal and conviction.
4.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
evidence of material witnesses, including the investigation officers and
panch witnesses, corroborates the prosecution story, and the acquittal is
perverse, calling for interference under Section 378 of the Code.
5. The learned Advocate for the respondents-accused submitted that
the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. He contended
that the prosecution case is built on a faulty and biased investigation, with
major lapses such as non-verification of the jeep's ownership through
RTO records, failure to seize account books or vouchers from the firm,
and reliance on secondary evidence without corroboration. The recoveries
of cash were voluntary and unexplained in source, raising doubts about
their linkage to the looted amount. No eye-witnesses were examined, and
the chain of circumstances remains incomplete, failing to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The revision application lacks merit as the
acquittal is well-reasoned. Hence, both the appeal and revision deserve
dismissal.
6. Having carefully heard the learned advocates appearing for both
sides and having thoroughly examined the depositions of the witnesses,
the documentary evidence on record, and the impugned judgment
rendered by the learned Sessions Court, this Court finds that the entire
prosecution case rests exclusively on circumstantial evidence. It is well
settled that such evidence must satisfy strict and rigorous standards,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
namely that it must be complete, cogent, and of such a nature as to
conclusively exclude every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of
the respondents-accused. The testimony of PW-27, Jaysinh Ajitsinh
Chauhan (Exh.63), was relied upon to corroborate the discovery of the
semi-charred dead body near Khengariya Patia on 03.06.1997. In his oral
evidence, he described visible head injuries with blood oozing from the
wounds and noted clear signs that the body had been set on fire using
diesel. The post-mortem report, duly proved through PW-25 (Exh.25),
was relied upon to establish further findings, including strangulation as
the cause of death. However, during cross-examination, several serious
procedural lapses were admitted, which substantially weakened the
prosecution case. These included the failure to record the phone slip
allegedly recovered from the pocket of the deceased in the inquest
panchnama at Exh.9 and the complete failure to verify the registration
details of the jeep on the date of the incident through proper RTO inquiry.
These omissions strike at the root of the prosecution case and severely
undermine the basic link sought to be established between the
respondents-accused and the alleged offence. The matter was further
compounded after the investigation was transferred to PW-26, C.P.I.
Popatji Masangji Chavda, whose deposition is at Exh.59. During his
cross-examination, he admitted that he had also failed to investigate the
ownership and control of the jeep, despite its alleged central role in the
case. These cumulative lapses and omissions clearly render the
investigation deficient and give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
7. The medical evidence placed on record provides clear and
unambiguous conclusions. PW-25, Dr. Anil Lalitbhai Verma, who
conducted the post-mortem examination, has duly proved the post-
mortem report, which has been exhibited at Exh.25. His detailed
examination notes establish the presence of definite ante-mortem injuries,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
including multiple contused lacerated wounds on the head, distinct
ligature marks encircling the neck that were deeper on the front side and
relatively lighter on the backside, and extensive burn injuries covering
nearly 100% of the body surface caused by the pouring of an inflammable
substance. Dr. Verma has categorically stated that the cause of death was
asphyxia due to strangulation and that the burning of the body occurred
only after death. These conclusions are further corroborated by the FSL
and serological reports, which have been marked as Exhs.21, 22, and 23.
This Court finds no material whatsoever to doubt or disbelieve these
medical findings. Accordingly, it stands conclusively proved that the
death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and that the body was
intentionally burnt after death. To this limited extent, the prosecution has
succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
8. The alleged recoveries of cash amounting in all to Rs.2,50,000/-
are wholly unreliable and cannot be accepted as credible evidence due to
fundamental defects in both documentary proof and oral testimony. The
prosecution relies upon a recovery panchnama at Exh.32 and the
deposition of PW-11, Batakumar Manubhai Makhija, recorded at Exh.31,
along with an alleged recovery of Rs.50,000 referred to as Exh.23.
However, Exh.23 is merely an FSL forwarding letter and not a recovery
document. Although PW-11 deposed regarding the recovery of cash from
a locked room situated in Nakoda Society, Sanand, no document
establishing ownership, possession, or tenancy of that room was ever
collected or produced. PW-24, Devshankar Ratilal Trivedi, whose
testimony appears at Exh.56, specifically stated that he had no connection
with the said premises. Further, PW-5, Kanubhai Popatlal Bhartiya,
recorded at Exh.19, acted as a panch witness for an entirely different
panchnama and had no role whatsoever in any cash recovery. The
prosecution has confused exhibit numbers and witnesses in relation to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
these alleged recoveries, rendering the entire evidence not only unreliable
but also legally inadmissible, and wholly incapable of supporting a
finding of guilt.
9. With regard to the alleged looted amount of Rs.4,50,000, the
testimonies of several witnesses require close scrutiny. PW-15, Hitenbhai
Bavabhai Patel (Exh.38), and PW-16, Jayantibhai Dhanjibhai Patel
(Exh.39), stated that the deceased had received cash payments from Mant
Traders, Rajkot. PW-17, Vallabhbhai Dharmashibhai Phaldu (Exh.40),
further deposed about alleged grain-sale proceeds paid at the Sanand
market. However, not a single cheque, cheque counterfoil, bank
statement, cash book, or ledger of the firm was seized, collected, or
exhibited. PW-21, Iliyaskhan Tajkhan Pathan (Exh.48), claimed to have
seen the accused carrying a suitcase at Rajkot ST stand on 02.06.1997,
but candidly admitted that he never saw the deceased in the vehicle. Most
damagingly, PW-27 admitted during cross-examination, particularly in
paragraphs 18 to 20 of Exh.63, that no effort was made to collect
documentary evidence from any bank or business establishment.
Consequently, neither the source nor the exact amount of the allegedly
looted cash has been proved through legally acceptable evidence.
10. The alleged recovery of the jeep bearing registration number GJ-
02-M-1938 is equally unsustainable and incapable of being relied upon
due to serious procedural and evidentiary lapses. There exists no valid
recovery panchnama for the vehicle, and Exh.20, relied upon by the
prosecution, is only an FSL letter and not a recovery document. No
verification regarding the ownership or registration status of the jeep on
or around 02.06.1997 was ever carried out. PW-27 admitted in paragraph
15 of his deposition at Exh.63 that no inquiry was made with the RTO,
even though a power-of-attorney holder had applied for release of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
vehicle without producing proper ownership documents. The
investigation was further tainted when the case was transferred midway
and remand was obtained from the Deesa Court instead of the competent
court at Viramgam. These procedural irregularities further vitiate the
alleged recovery and render it legally untenable.
11. While the prosecution has established that the death was homicidal
to the limited extent that the body was recovered in a burnt condition, the
entire chain of circumstantial evidence collapses due to multiple serious
deficiencies. These include reliance on non-existent or wrongly numbered
exhibits, the complete absence of documentary proof regarding the
alleged loot, and admitted investigative lapses on the part of PW-26 and
PW-27. When considered cumulatively, these shortcomings create
substantial gaps in the prosecution case, making it impossible to establish
a complete and reliable chain of circumstances connecting the
respondents-accused with the alleged offence.
12. The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, yet
it has failed to establish any circumstance that effectively completes the
chain required to implicate the accused. Notably, even as per the
prosecution, there is a complete absence of any established motive. In
cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive assumes
great significance. The absence of motive, when combined with broken
and unreliable circumstances, is sufficient to dismantle the prosecution
case. The evidence on record does not lead to a conclusion that, in all
human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and by no
one else.
13. Now, reverting back to the facts of the present case, nothing sort of
any such material seems to be placed on record to indicate as to motive
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
behind the commission of the offence in question and therefore,
admittedly the whole case rests on the circumstantial evidence and
considering the way in which the entire incident have been described,
followed by the investigation carried out by the IO and to convict the
accused in absence of any direct evidence though dealing with the case
based on circumstantial evidence, the important aspect which requires to
be considered are such as (i) whether circumstances relied by prosecution
have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) whether those
circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt
of accused; (iii) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a
chain so far complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within
all human probability crime was committed by accused; (iv) whether they
are consistent only with hypothesis of accused being guilty; and lastly (v)
whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except one to be proved.
14. Upon a thorough and meticulous evaluation of the entire evidence
on record, both oral and documentary, this Court is fully satisfied that the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Court does not
call for any interference. The findings recorded are based on a proper
appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. The reasons for
confirming the acquittal are therefore set out hereinafter, seriatim,
without adverting to any isolated issue, in keeping with the consistent
practice of this Court.
15. The medical evidence firmly establishes that the death of
Girishbhai Mahadevbhai Thakkar was homicidal in nature. The post-
mortem notes multiple ante-mortem injuries, contused lacerated wounds
on the head, clear ligature marks indicating strangulation, and extensive
burns caused by diesel, culminating in death by asphyxia. However, the
mere establishment of homicidal death is only the initial step. In a case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
founded exclusively on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must
further prove that every link in the chain unerringly points to the guilt of
the accused while completely excluding all possibilities consistent with
innocence. On this crucial aspect, the prosecution has failed.
16. The most glaring defect in the prosecution case is the complete
failure to ascertain the ownership or control of the jeep bearing
registration number GJ-02-M-1938 at the relevant time. Both
investigating officers admitted that no RTO records were obtained, no
registered owner was examined, and no Form 29 or 30 was seized. A
vehicle alleged to be central to the crime remained unconnected to the
accused. In the absence of basic investigation on this vital link, the entire
prosecution case collapses and is left without any credible foundation.
17. The alleged recovery of Rs.2,00,000 from a locked room at Nakoda
Society, Sanand, is equally doubtful. The panchnama and evidence fail to
disclose who owned the premises, who possessed the key, or how the
accused exercised control over it. No ownership or tenancy documents
were produced. PW-24 expressly denied any tenancy arrangement.
Significantly, the key was never seized. Coupled with allegations of
custodial violence and irregular remand proceedings, the alleged recovery
lacks voluntariness and credibility and cannot be relied upon.
18. The recovery of Rs.50,000 from respondent No.2 is equally
unreliable. The panch witness failed to support the prosecution, no serial
numbers were matched, no bank verification was done, and the cash
could not be linked to the alleged offence. In a case where robbery is the
alleged motive, such lapses strike at the heart of the prosecution case and
render the recovery meaningless.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
19. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the deceased was
carrying Rs.4,50,000 or any large sum on the relevant date. Despite oral
assertions, no account books, vouchers, bank statements, or cheque
records were seized. The investigating officer admitted that he never
collected bank or business records. When primary evidence of the alleged
looted amount is absent, the Court is left with unsubstantiated oral claims,
which cannot form the basis of conviction in a serious criminal case
where the liberty of the accused is at stake.
20. In the result, the chain of circumstantial evidence is not only
broken at several places but is non-existent in material segments. Several
hypotheses consistent with the innocence of the respondents-accused
remain open, and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of every such doubt must
necessarily go to the accused.
21. At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another
[(2022) 3 SCC 471] encapsulated the legal position covering the field
after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: -
"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 acquittal in the following
words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4
SCC 415]
"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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
(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 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."
22. In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2023)
9 SCC 581] the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the principles
governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC 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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/186/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
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."
23. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in
the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that the case of the
prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the
learned Sessions Court, the present appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed. In light of the above, the captioned revision application is also
dismissed accordingly. Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to
the Court concerned forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP
