Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Gulmamad Ayubbhai Khod on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1056/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1056 of 2014
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
GULMAMAD AYUBBHAI KHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BHUNESH C RUPERA(3896) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated
31.05.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.21 of 2013 on
the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Morbi, whereby the respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, who
are A-1 to A-4 in the trial Court, were acquitted of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1056/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
charges for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 504 and 114 of IPC and 37(1) and 135(1) of the
Gujarat Police Act.
2. Facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass
and may be stated as follows:
3. The wife of A-2 eloped with the person by name
Allaudin Jusab (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased") and started living with him along with his
first wife and children in his house. Therefore, A-1,
who is the father of A-2, and A-3 and A-4, who are the
brothers of A-2, got enraged as the deceased has been
living with the wife of A-2 and it is stated that on
18.11.2012 at about 9 am, A-1 to A-4 went to the
house of the deceased and A-1 stabbed the deceased
with a knife in stomach while A-2 to A-4 caught hold of
him. The deceased sustained serious stab injury in the
said attack. He was taken to the hospital. While
undergoing treatment in the hospital, he succumbed to
the said injury. So, the wife of the deceased, who is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1056/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
examined as P.W.-7, lodged a report with the police.
The said report was registered as a case under Section
302, 504 and 114 of IPC and under Sections 37(1) and
135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. The case was
investigated. The dead body of the deceased was sent
to postmortem examination. Inquest was also held over
the dead body of the deceased. Both in the inquest and
the postmortem examination, it was opined that the
deceased died due to said injury sustained by him in
the attack.
4. The accused no.1 was arrested on 21.11.2012 and A-2
to A-4 were arrested on 19.11.2012. On the disclosure
statement said to have been given by the accused, that
they will show the place where they have hidden the
knife, it is stated that they led the police and the
mediators to the place where the knife and other
weapons used were hidden and at their instance, the
knife was recovered along with other weapons by the
police. Blood strains were found on the said weapons
and they were sent to FSL for examination by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1056/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
chemical analyst. Blood group on the said weapons
was identified which matched with the blood group of
the deceased. After completion of the investigation,
police laid the charge-sheet against the accused for the
aforesaid offences.
5. In the trial Court, after the accused made their
appearance, charges under Section 302, 504 and 114
of the IPC and under Section 37(1) and 135(1) of
Gujarat Police Act were framed against the accused.
They were read-over and explained to the accused.
They denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
6. In the trial, the prosecution got examined P.W. 1 to 12
witnesses and got marked 31 documents to prove its
case against the accused.
7. After completion of the trial, after considering the
evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused
not guilty for the aforesaid charges levelled against
them and acquitted them of the said charges by the
impugned judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1056/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
8. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present
appeal challenging the validity of the said judgment of
acquittal.
9. We have heard learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the
State and Learned Counsel for the respondents Ms.
Kiran Parmar.
10. During the pendency of the appeal, the first
respondent, who is A-1 in the said case, passed away
on 28.02.2024. Death certificate to that effect was also
produced by the learned Counsel for the respondents
as well as learned APP along with report of the
concerned Police Inspector. Therefore, the appeal
against A-1, who is the main accused in the case stood
abated.
11. So, there remains the case only against the respondent
nos. 2 to 4, who are A-2 to A-4 in the trial Court.
Although P.W.-7, who is the wife of the deceased,
stated in the FIR lodged by her that all the accused A-1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1056/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
to A-4 armed with deadly weapons came to their house
to attack the deceased and that A-1 stabbed him with
knife in his stomach, in the cross-examination of P.W.-
7, she prevaricated from the said version given by her
in the FIR and stated only A-1 came to their house and
stabbed the deceased with the knife. She did not
depose anything against A-2 to A-4 stating that they
also came to their house armed with weapons and
attacked the deceased and caused injuries to him.
Therefore, there is absolutely no whisper in her
evidence relating to any incriminating evidence given
against A-2 to A-4. P.W.s -1, 3 and 5 are the other
alleged eye-witnesses to the incident as per the
prosecution version. P.W.-1 is the cousin brother of the
deceased, P.W.-3 is the first wife of the deceased and
P.W.-5 is the elder brother of the deceased. Even these
three witnesses also did not speak anything
incriminating against A-2 to A-4. They did not say that
A-2 to A-4 also came along with A-1 to the house of the
deceased and attacked him with any weapon and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1056/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
caused injuries to him. On the other hand, they
consistently stated in their evidence that only A-1
came to their house and stabbed the deceased with the
knife. So, they completely eliminated the presence of
A-2 to A-4 at the scene of offence when the said offence
of murder took place. Therefore, there is absolutely no
evidence whatsoever on record which is incriminating
against A-2 to A-4 to prove their complicity in
commission of the said offence along with A-1.
Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the guilt of respondent nos. 2 to 4, who are A-2
to A-4 in the trial court, for the offences with which
they are charged in this case. There is not even an iota
of evidence on record to hold them guilty for the said
offences.
12. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on
record and on proper appreciation of the same, has
recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused
by the impugned judgment. We do not find any patent
illegality or any error of law or any erroneous
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1056/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
appreciation of evidence on record relating to the said
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. On
reappraisal of the evidence on record, we also found
absolutely no evidence against A-2 to A-4 to hold them
guilty for any of the charges levelled against them.
Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal of the
trial Court is sustainable and it calls for no
interference in this appeal. So, the appeal fails and
liable to be dismissed.
13. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if
any, stand cancelled. Record and Proceedings, be sent
back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
