Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ganeshbhai Jhinabhai Gavit on 19 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1622 of 2003
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
GANESHBHAI JHINABHAI GAVIT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN MEHTA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. JAYDEEP M SHUKLA(6974) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
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 State has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari on 20.9.2003 in
Sessions Case no.112 of 2001. The learned Trial Court
Judge observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the
case against the accused and thus, acquitted both the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
accused under Sections 302, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP, referring to the facts of the
case, submitted that though the complainant has turned
hostile, the learned Trial Court Judge was required to
appreciate the evidence, which has come on record with
the evidence of one Ratan Jivan who was the labourer at
the place of incident and the evidence had to be assessed
by reading the deposition of the complainant as well as this
witness together, which could have substantiated the
allegation which has been lodged against the complainant.
The learned APP has submitted that the learned Judge has
failed to take into consideration the evidence in the form of
postmortem note, which shows the injuries and the cause
of death is asphyxia, which could be observed to consider
that the accused had strangulated the deceased.
3. Heard Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP. We have perused
the depositions of the witnesses. During the course of trial,
about five witnesses were examined and the prosecution
has relied upon the documentary evidence. The
complainant - Atin Iklu was examined as PW2 and Ratan
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
Jivan who is referred as eye-witness was examined as PW3.
The postmortem note shows that the Doctor has opined
that the cause of death is due to asphyxia. The
complainant stated that on the day of the incident, his
father had taken goats for grazing in their field and the
field which was of Devchand sold to the accused, all the
three accused had come there and the driver Rajesh along
with them who was on the tractor at that time, there was
verbal altercation between the accused and the
complainant's father. He stated that his father had fallen
down with his head down to earth. He had also gone to
rescue his father, at that time, he said that three of the
accused exhorted to kill him so he ran away from the
place. He stated that he had seen his father fallen down on
the earth with his head towards the earth. The
complainant was referred to Exh.20, his complaint, which
he did not support and therefore, he was declared hostile.
The learned APP by referring to the complaint had brought
it on record by affirmation that the complainant had seen
the incident and the father had fallen in their field with the
face down towards the earth and the deceased and the
accused were giving kick and fist blows. He also stated that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
in the complaint, he has given the facts that there was
coconut coir in the hands of Ganesh and Ganesh had
climbed upon his father and was beating his father.
However, in the cross-examination, this fact has not been
supported by the complainant. He affirmed that he has not
seen Ratan Jivan taking the cattles towards his field. He
had no occasion to talk with Ratan Jivan and had never
informed him about the incident. He also affirmed in the
cross-examination that he had not seen all the three
accused beating his father. He even referred to the title of
the property, which was sold by Devchand and since
Devchand was the nephew, his father had an impression
that he has the right on the property. His father was not
happy with the fact that the accused had purchased the
property from Devchand. He also stated that on that day,
his father had refused for working on the field and
therefore, the accused person has left the place. He also
affirmed that there has been tenancy case in Mamlatdar
Court and affirmed that there was enmity because of the
land, which was sold to them by Devchand. The
complainant has turned hostile and not supported the
prosecution case. He has also not given any details in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
cross-examination to believe the prosecution case. Ratan
Jivan who is alleged to have remained present at the time
of the incident and who as per the prosecution had seen
the incident, has not supported the prosecution case. He
very clearly denied of seeing the incident and he stated that
the deceased Iklu had on that day since there was dispute
between them, asked accused to move away from the field,
but since they did not remove the tractor, the verbal
quarrel ensued and since his cattles had moved, he went
away from this place and thereafter, when he returned
back, he had seen Iklu dead on the field. He had not seen
the incident with his own eyes. He clarified of not seeing
the accused beating the deceased.
4. The learned Trial Court Judge has examined the testimony
of all the witnesses, and has analyzed the evidence on
record. The case of strangulation as projected could not be
proved. The complainant himself has failed to corroborate
his own complaint. The witness - Ratan Jivan has not
supported the prosecution case. He has denied of seeing
any abuse or beatings to the deceased. The cause of death
is asphyxia, where it could not be proved of any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
strangulation from the side of the accused.
5. In view of the observations made hereinabove, we find that
the analysis of the evidence is consistent with the
testimony on the record. The complainant as well as the
witness who is alleged to be the eye-witness have not
supported the prosecution case. We do not find any
infirmity in the judgment and thus, accordingly, we upheld
the judgment of the acquittal by observing the judgment in
the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC
333, wherein it has been observed 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. In view of the above and the principles of law that have
been laid down, the appeal stands dismissed. Registry is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
directed to send the record and proceedings back to the
Trial Court, if received.
(GITA GOPI,J)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
Maulik
