Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mansukh Ramji Gohel on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 194 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANSUKH RAMJI GOHEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 are A1- to A-3 in Sessions
Case No.41 of 2009 on the file of the learned District &
Sessions Judge, Porbandar. They were prosecuted for
the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 323
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
and 114 of the IPC. Eventually, after trial, they were
found not guilty for any of the aforesaid charges
levelled against them and they were acquitted of the
said charges by the impugned judgment.
2. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State
has preferred the present appeal challenging the legal
validity of the impugned judgment.
3. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the
sister of A-1 and A-2 was married to the deceased.
They were blessed with four daughters during their
lawful wedlock. But subsequently, disputes cropped-
up between the couple and on account of the said
family disputes, the sister of A-1 and A-2 was living
separately along with her children in her parents
house. The deceased is also residing in the same
village. So, on 31.05.2009 in the afternoon, the
deceased went to the house of the parents of his wife
to pick-up his children. At that time A-1 and A-2, who
are brothers-in-law of the deceased and A-3, who is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
the associate of A-1 and A-2 picked-up a quarrel with
the deceased questioning him as to why he came to
their house. During the said quarrel, A-1 to A-3 beat
the deceased by giving fist blows on his stomach and
other parts of the body and also kicked him. P.W.-3,
who is another brother-in-law of the deceased, rescued
him from the hands of the A-1 to A-3 and sent him to
his house in a rickshaw.
4. After the deceased reached his house, he had a
abdominal pain during the night time and he went to
the hospital for treatment. He was treated in the said
hospital. Before the doctor, he has stated that about
two days back, he suffered an injury by wooden log
accidentally. On the requisition given by the hospital
authorities, the dying declaration of the deceased was
recorded by the Executive Magistrate. In his statement
given before the Execute Magistrate, he has stated that
when he went to the house of the parents of his wife,
that A-1 to A-3 beat him and gave him fist blows and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
kicked him. The said statement of the deceased was
recorded as an FIR by the police and investigated the
case. While so, the deceased died on 03.06.2009. So,
the section of law is altered to Section 302 of IPC.
Autopsy was held over to dead body of the deceased
and the doctor opined that the probable cause of his
death is due to rupture of oeloptiegial variler
amociated liver cirohojis.
5. After completion of the investigation, police filed the
charge sheet against the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 302, 504, 323 and 114 of
the IPC.
6. In the Trial Court, the charges under Section 302, 504,
323 and 114 of the IPC were framed against the
accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed
to be tried.
7. During the course of trial, the prosecution got
examined P.W.s 1 to 22 witnesses and got marked 33
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
exhibits to prove its case against the accused.
8. At the conclusion of trial, after considering the
evidence on record and on appreciation of the same,
the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty
for the offences punishable under Section 323, 114 of
IPC, but found them not guilty for the offences
punishable under Section 302 and 504 of IPC and
acquitted them of the said charges.
9. Therefore, aggrieved by the said judgment of the
acquittal under Section 302 and 504 of the IPC, the
State has preferred the appeal.
10. When the appeal came-up for hearing, we have heard
learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the State. Even
though the respondent nos.1 to 3 are being
represented by learned Advocate Mr. Dipak Dave, he is
not present before the Court today and he did not
turn-up for hearing. This appeal is listed before us on
board under the caption "for final hearing of critically
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
old matters of 11 to 20 years". Therefore, as it is an old
appeal of the year 2013, we are not inclined to adjourn
the hearing of the appeal and we have decided to
dispose of the appeal based on the material available
on record on merits.
11. We have carefully perused the appeal grounds,
evidence and other material available on record from
the Record and Proceedings.
12. In the present appeal, we are concerned only with the
charges under Section 302 relating to offence of
murder and 504 of IPC.
13. As can be seen from the evidence on record, the
prosecution basically failed to prove that it is the case
of homicidal death so as to maintain the charge under
Section 302 of IPC for offence of murder. Even as per
the facts of the prosecution case and also the
statement of the deceased given in dying declaration,
the accused only beat him with their hands by giving
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
him fist blows and kicked him. So, no fatal injuries
were caused by them to the deceased in the attack.
When the accused went to hospital after he suffered
abdominal pain during the night time in his house, he
has stated before the doctor, as can be seen from the
injury certificate issued by Bhavsinhji General
Hospital, Porbandar, that he has sustained an injury
by a wooden log two days before the said date
accidentally. Therefore, it is evident that he got the
abdominal pain due to injury sustained by him by a
wooden log two days before the said date accidentally
as per his own statement given before the doctor,
which is evident from the injury certificate. Further,
after his death, when autopsy was held over his dead
body, the doctor also opined that the cause of his
death is due to rupture of oeloptiegial variler
amociated liver cirohojis. So, his cause of death is due
to rupture of oeloptiegial variler amociated liver
cirohojis and not due to the injuries caused by the
accused i.e., due to fist blows given by them and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
kicking him. Therefore, when the cause of death is due
to liver cirohojis, it is evident that it is not a case of
homicidal death and it is a case of natural death
caused due to ailment of his liver cirohojis. So, when
the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased met
with homicidal death, there itself the charge under
Section 302 relating to murder of the deceased fails.
Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation to hold
that no case is made out for the offences punishable
under Section 302 of IPC against the accused.
14. There is also no evidence on record to prove or
establish the charges under Section 504 of IPC.
Therefore, the trial Court after considering the
evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the
same, arrived at a right conclusion and rightly
recorded a finding of acquittal against the accused for
the offences punishable under Section 302 and 504 of
IPC. We do not find any manifest error of law in the
impugned judgment. Upon considering the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
evidence on record and reappraisal of the same, we
also do not find any material to hold the accused guilty
for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 504
of IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the trial
Court is sustainable and it calls for no interference in
this appeal. So, the appeal fails and is liable to be
dismissed.
15. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the
judgment of the trial Court relating to acquittal of
accused for the offences punishable under Section
302 and 504 of IPC. Record and Proceedings be sent
back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
