Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Popat Giga Kuchhadiya on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/97/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 97 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
POPAT GIGA KUCHHADIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED 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. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 29/09/2012
passed in Sessions Case No.38 of 2009 on the file of the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar whereby the
respondents who are A-1 to A-3 in the said case were
acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/97/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
Sections 307, 323, 325, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the
de-facto complainant who is the injured in this case and
examined as PW-19, belongs to one political party and A-1 to
A-3 belong to other political party. In the election that took
place prior to the date of offence, PW-19 supported the
candidature of the person belonging to his party and his
candidate won the election. The candidate supported by A-1
to A-3 was defeated and he lost the election. So, it is stated
that A-1 to A-3 bore grudge against PW-19. While so, on
28/01/2009 at about 8:00 p.m., when PW-19 was standing
before the pan-shop of PW-20 that A-1 to A-3 reached the said
place. A-1 was armed with an axe and A-2 and to A-3 were
armed with sticks. A-1 attacked PW-19 with the axe on his
head and caused injury to him and A-2 and A-3 beat PW-19
with sticks and caused injures to him on his hand and other
parts of the body. PW-19 who sustained head injury fell down
on the ground. Thereafter, A-1 to A-3 left the place and went
away.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/97/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
3. PW-21, who is nephew of the injured, has called the
ambulance on phone and has taken him to the hospital where
he was treated. Thereafter, PW-19 lodged report with the
police on the next date i.e. 29/01/2009 while he was in the
hospital. The said report was registered as an FIR for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504 and
114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay
Police Act. The case was investigated. The accused were
arrested on 29/01/2009 and it is stated that on the disclosure
statement given by them that they led the police and
mediators to the place where they have hidden the weapons
used by them to attack the de-facto complainant and to cause
injuries to the de-facto complainant. The police recovered the
axe and two sticks at their instance in the presence of the
mediators. It is stated that the said axe and two sticks are
stained with blood. The police also recovered the blood
stained clothes of the de-facto complainant and also of the
accused in the presence of the mediators. The said weapons
and the blood stained clothes were sent for examination by
the expert to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Though
the analyst found blood on the clothes and the weapons, the
blood group of the said blood found on the clothes and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/97/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
weapons could not be identified.
4. After completion of the investigation, the police filed
charge sheet against A-1 to A-3 for the aforesaid offences.
5. In the trial court, after the accused made their
appearance, charges for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 323, 325, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act were framed
against them. The charges were explained to them. A-1 to A-
3 denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
6. At the conclusion of the trial, after considering the
evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the
learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty for any of
the charges levelled against them and acquitted them of the
said charges by the impugned judgment.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State
has preferred the present appeal challenging the legality and
validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/97/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
8. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard
learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the State. Despite
service of notice on respondent nos.1 to 3, none appeared for
them. Even though we have provided an opportunity by
adjourning the matter, respondent nos.1 to 3 did not appear
today also and there is also no representation on their behalf.
Therefore, as it is an old appeal of the year 2013 and listed on
our board under the caption 'For Final Hearing in Critically
Old Matters of year 2011 to 2020' we are not incline to
further adjourn the appeal and we have decided to dispose of
the appeal on the basis of the material available on record and
on merits.
9. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-28 witnesses and got
marked 27 exhibits. But except PW-19 who is the injured and
the de-facto complainant as well as the official witnesses who
is the doctor who treated the injured and the Investigation
Officer, all other witnesses including the eye witnesses to the
incident and the panch witnesses completely turned hostile to
the prosecution case and they did not support the prosecution
case. As per the prosecution case, the offence took place
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/97/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
before pan-shop of PW-20. So, it is the scene of offence in this
case. But PW-20 who is the eye witness to the said incident
did not support the prosecution case. He did not say that A-1
to A-3 attacked PW-19 in front of his pan-shop with the
weapons like axe and sticks and beat him and caused injuries
to him. Even PW-21 who is the nephew of PW-19 who
according to the prosecution version has sent PW-19 to the
hospital in an ambulance also did not support the prosecution
case and he did not say that the accused beat PW-19 and that
PW-19 has sustained injuries and that he has sent PW-19 to
the hospital. Therefore, we do not have the eye witness
account in this case to prove the case of the prosecution.
10. Although it is stated that the Investigation Officer has
seized the weapons i.e. the axe and the sticks at the instance
of the accused on the alleged disclosure statement given by
them, the said seizure of the weapons is also not proved as the
panch witnesses relating to the said seizure also did not
support the prosecution case. Further, the blood group of the
blood found on the said weapons could not be identified to
match the same with the blood found on the clothes of PW-19.
Similarly, even though the clothes of PW-19 and the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/97/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
are seized, the panch witnesses did not support the case of
the prosecution and seizure of the said clothes of both the
injured and the accused is not proved. The blood group on
the said clothes is also not identified to match the same with
the blood found on the weapons. Therefore, seizure of the
said clothes and weapons is of no use to the case of the
prosecution to prove that the accused beat PW-19 and caused
injuries to him.
11. In the evidence of PW-19 who is injured witness, the trial
court found certain infirmities and inconsistency in his
evidence. The sticks said to have been used to beat him
varied from the sticks spoken to by PW-19 in his evidence. So,
considering the said infirmities in the evidence of the injured
witness PW-19 and as all the material witnesses in the case
turned hostile, the trial court, on appreciation of the said
evidence, found the accused not guilty for the said offences
and recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of them. Upon
considering the said evidence on record and on reappraisal of
the same, we are also of the considered view that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for
any of the aforesaid charges levelled against them with legal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/97/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal of
the trial court warrants no interference in this appeal and it is
not liable to be set aside.
12. Resultantly, present appeal of the State is dismissed.
Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged.
13. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the
concerned court.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
