Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jivanbhai Chhitabhai Parmar on 19 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JIVANBHAI CHHITABHAI PARMAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AR MAJMUDAR(428) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 19/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. The challenge is given by the State to the judgment of
acquittal dated 26.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.124 of 2000. The
trial was against two accused under Sections 302, 337, 506(2)
and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). The learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
Trial Court Judge observed that the offence against both 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 both the accused.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant - Ramji
was residing at village Manjrole near the house of the present
accused. In the backyard of the complainant, an altercation took
place between deceased and accused for the division made with
old bricks and, as the bricks were lying scattered, the mother of
the complainant was adjusting them, at that time, both the
accused came there and abused the mother of the complainant,
objecting her. The charge, which was raised is that on instigation
by accused No.2, accused No.1 threw a brick on the mother of
the complainant and on hearing the shouts of deceased -
Punjiben, the complainant rushed to the place of incident.
Before he could reach there, accused No.1 gave a blow with a
brick on the neck of the deceased. The deceased became
unconscious and was taken to the hospital, where she was
declared dead.
3. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt submitted that the evidence
was led by the son (PW1), brother (PW2), who had turned hostile,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
grandson (PW3) of the deceased and one Tanubhai (PW4), who
was a labourer working in the field. The evidence of the Doctor
(PW5) refers to the postmortem. Ms. Bhatt also refers to the FSL
report, which she states, though does not support, but the
evidence of the witnesses do confirm the intention of the accused
to commit murder.
3.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt further stated that, PW10 had been
all throughout with the Investigating Officer-Mr. Vaghela in the
investigation and Investigating Officer Mr. Vaghela could not be
examined because of his sickness, thus, Ms. Bhatt submitted
that PW10 is aware of the facts of the investigation.
4. Perused the judgment and the analysis of the evidence by
the learned Trial Court Judge. The place of offence was recorded
through the panchnama at Exh.28, however, no panchas had
supported the panchnama. The Investigating Officer could not be
examined, but the P.S.O., who was along with the Investigating
Officer has referred to the facts and investigation undertaken.
According to the P.S.O., the clothes were sent for FSL
examination. The case was pleaded on record that accused No.2
had instigated accused No.1 and thereby, he had thrown the
brick on deceased Punjiben, which had turned fatal leading to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
her death.
4.1 The learned Trial Court Judge has referred to the
deposition of the witnesses. The complainant, as such is not an
eyewitness to the incident because he states that he ran to the
place after the shouts of his mother. The learned Judge could
examine the deposition of the Doctor - Hitendra Kantibhai
Gandhilal Dhobi and the P.M. report at Exh.15, which notes that
the death was because of the hemorrhage and because of that
head injury, the death has been caused.
4.2 The learned Trial Court Judge observed that there is no
evidence on record that the brick was thrown by accused No.1
on the instigation of accused No.2. While the Doctor stated that
such kind of injury could be caused, if deceased Punjiben falls
down because of the push and in that circumstances falling on
the pile of brick, such injuries could not be denied and that
could be the cause of death.
5. The FSL report could not corroborate the evidence. The
blood stains clothes were not believed, as no support could be
found from the FSL report. The panchas could not prove the
case. The fact of blow by the brick was not believed. The learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
Judge was an opinion that the altercation could have caused the
lady deceased to fall on the pile of brick and thereby she may
have sustained injury, which has caused the death. Hence, the
intention of murder was not believed by the trial Court Judge.
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."
6.1 12. In the case of Kallu Vs. State of M.P., [(2006) 10 SCC
313], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the
power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power
exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both
types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire
evidence. However, one significant difference is that an
order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate
court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on
evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It
will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely
because a different view is possible. The appellate court will
also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence
in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get
the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it
should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the
trial court."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
7. This Court does not find any infirmity in the analysis of the
evidence. Nothing could be brought on record to show that any
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)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
Pankaj/8
