Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jaimin Rajubhai Ramani on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 122 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 823 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
JAIMIN RAJUBHAI RAMANI
=================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS BAROT, SR ADVOCATE with MS RHEA
CHOKSHI(10808) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:51:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Date : 02/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. As these two appeals arise out of the same judgment rendered
in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2011 by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Amreli dated 22.11.2012, one preferred by the State and
another by the de facto complainant, they are heard together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The respondent herein is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.
56 of 2011 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli.
He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as, the IPC).
Eventually, he was acquitted of the said charge by the trial Court as
he was not found guilty of commission of said offence of murder as
alleged by the prosecution.
2.1 Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
both, the State as well as the de facto complainant who is PW-19,
have preferred these two appeals assailing the legality and validity of
the impugned judgment of acquittal.
3. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on
29.04.2011 between 11:30 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. there was a quarrel
between a person by name Mayur (herein after referred to as "the
deceased") and the accused opposite to a electrical shop in Hira
Moti Chowk market, Amreli relating to a monetary dispute which is
pending between both of them. In the said quarrel, it is stated that
the accused attacked the deceased with a knife and caused multiple
injuries to him on his body. After the deceased who sustained the
said multiple injuries at the hands of the accused, fell unconscious
driver of one auto-rickshaw took him in his auto-rickshaw to the
Government hospital, Amreli. The doctor, who examined him,
declared that he was brought dead. So, post mortem examination
was held over the dead body of the deceased on the same day at
about 3:45 p.m. The doctor found 11 injuries on his body and he
opined that he died on account of cardio respiratory arrest due
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
to shock due to severe haemorrhage due to injuries on the vital
organs i.e. both lungs, liver and intestine. Inquest was also held
over his dead body and the persons, in whose presence the inquest
was held, also opined regarding his apparent cause of death that he
died due to the injuries found on his body.
3.1 It is stated that the auto-rickshaw driver, who took the
deceased to the hospital, informed about the incident to the uncle of
the deceased who is examined as PW-14. This PW-14, in turn,
informed about the same to the brother of the deceased, who is
examined as PW-19. So, PW-19 lodged a report with the police on
29.04.2011 at about 1:30 p.m. The said report was registered for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused.
3.2 The case was investigated. During the course of investigation,
the accused was arrested on 30.04.2011. It is stated that the accused
voluntarily surrendered before the police on that day along with his
blood stained clothes and one blood stained knife. It is also stated
that he has confessed regarding commission of offence and on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
disclosure statement given by him as to where another knife used in
commission of offence was hidden, that he led the police to the place
where it was hidden and at his instance, another knife was seized by
the police in the presence of mediators. The blood stained clothes of
the deceased were also seized in the hospital. The said blood stained
clothes of both the deceased and the accused and the blood stained
knife produced by the accused, were sent for examination by
Chemical Analyst, to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The
blood of the accused and the blood of the deceased was also
collected and it was sent to ascertain their blood groups. The blood
group of accused was identified as 'B' group but the blood group of
the deceased could not be identified. The blood found on the clothes
of the accused is found to be of 'AB' group and the blood found on
the clothes of the deceased was also found to be of 'AB' group.
Similarly, the blood found on the knife was also identified as of
'AB' group.
3.3 Therefore, after completion of investigation, the police have
filed Charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
under Section 302 of the IPC.
3.4 After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions Division,
it was made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli
for trial. The trial Court framed sole charge for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused. The
accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. During the course
of trial, prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-22 witnesses and got
marked 22 exhibits.
3.5 At the culmination of the trial, after considering the said oral
and documentary evidence, which include the medical evidence on
record, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for the aforesaid
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and acquitted him
of the said charge.
3.6 Aggrieved thereby, both, the State and the de facto
complainant who is examined as PW-19, have preferred these
appeals questioning the legality and validity of the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
judgment of acquittal.
4. When these appeal came up for hearing, we have heard
Ms. Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
appellant - State in Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2013, Mr. Ashish
M. Dagli, learned counsel for the appellant - de facto complainant in
Criminal Appeal No. 823 of 2013 and Mr. Tejas Barot, Senior
Advocate, learned counsel appearing with Ms. Rhea Choksi for the
respondent - accused, at length.
5. At the outset, it is significant to note here that the offence took
place in a broad daylight between 11:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. and in a
busy locality i.e. Hira Moti Chowk, Amreli, in front of a electrical
shop. When the offence took place in a broad daylight in a market
place, surprisingly, no eye-witness to the incident was examined by
the prosecution to prove that it is the accused who has attacked the
deceased with the knife and caused the said multiple injuries which
resulted into his death and thereby, killed him. Not even a single
witness from the vicinity at the scene of offence who are doing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
business in the said market or who are residing there or who are
present there, has been examined by the prosecution to prove that it
is the accused who is the culprit who committed the murder of the
deceased. No explanation is absolutely forthcoming from the
evidence of the Investigation Officer for non-examination of any of
the said material witnesses from the said market where the offence
took place. It is a serious lapse on the part of the Investigation
Officer. It is also fatal to the case of the prosecution as the material
witnesses, who have witnessed the incident at the scene of offence,
were not examined in this case.
5.1 PW-19 is the brother of the deceased. According to his
version in the testimony given by him, he has seen two persons
quarreling i.e. his brother who is the deceased and another person.
He stated that his brother was covering his face with a napkin. But,
he could not give the details of the person who quarreled with the
deceased and who attacked him with the knife and caused injuries to
him and killed him. Thus, he does not know who is the person who
attacked the deceased and he also did not name the person who
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
attacked the deceased and he also did not specifically say that it is
the accused herein who is the assailant who attacked the deceased
with the knife and killed him. So, his evidence is not at all useful to
the prosecution to prove and establish that it is the accused who is
the culprit who has committed the said murder by causing the said
fatal injuries to the deceased.
5.2 PW-14 is the uncle of the deceased. According to him and
even according to the case of the prosecution, one auto-rickshaw
driver brought the deceased to the hospital from the scene of offence
and he informed about the incident to this PW-14 and this PW-14, in
turn, informed the same to the PW-19 who is the complainant and
brother of the deceased. This PW-14 is admittedly not an eye-
witness to the incident. He was not present at the scene of offence
when the offence took place. His evidence is only a hearsay
evidence as it is stated that the auto-rickshaw driver informed him
about the incident. But, surprisingly, the said auto-rickshaw driver
was not examined in this case. He was not examined by the
Investigation Officer during the course of investigation and he was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
not cited as an eye-witness to the case. He is a material witness for
all practical purposes as it is stated that he brought the deceased
from the scene of offence to the hospital. So, he is the best person to
speak as to who attacked the deceased and caused injuries to him
and killed him. So, the material witness in this case is not examined
by the prosecution. His evidence has been deliberately suppressed
by the prosecution. No explanation is forthcoming regarding his
non-examination. Therefore, adverse inference under Section 114(g)
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) is to be drawn on
account of the non-examination of the said material witness and
inference that could be drawn in the facts and circumstance of the
case is that if he is examined that as his evidence would be
unfavourable to the prosecution, that his evidence has been
deliberately suppressed by the prosecution. So, his non-examination
is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it is also a clear lapse on
the part of the Investigation Officer.
5.3 Although PW-14 stated that the auto-rickshaw driver informed
him about the incident, his evidence shows that some unknown auto
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
driver informed him about the incident. This appears to be a
concocted version. How, the driver of the auto-rickshaw who is a
stranger to PW-14 knows that PW-14 is the uncle of the deceased
and informed him about the incident is not explained by the
prosecution.
5.4 Even though, PW-14 also stated that there are disputes
between the accused and the deceased relating to a monetary
transaction, the Investigation Officer stated that this PW-14 did not
state about the said fact before him in his earlier statement recorded
during the course of investigation. Therefore, it is a significant
omission made by him in his earlier statement and it clearly proves
that it is a deliberate improvement made by him as a result of
afterthought during the course of trial of the case for the purpose of
attributing motive to the accused for attacking the deceased.
Further, there is no valid evidence that was adduced by the
prosecution to prove that there is any enmity between the accused
and the deceased relating to any such monetary dispute to establish
any such motive.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
5.5 The fact that the accused himself surrendered before the police
along with his blood stained clothes and one blood stained knife and
that the same were recovered from him, is also not proved in this
case by the prosecution. The mediators in whose presence he was
allegedly arrested on his alleged voluntary surrender and in whose
presence, the said blood stained clothes of the accused and the knife
were recovered, did not support of the said version of the
prosecution. Therefore, the seizure of the said blood stained clothes
and the knife from the accused, is not proved. So, the fact that some
blood of 'AB' group was found on the said clothes along with the
blood of 'AB' group on the clothes of the deceased, is of no use
when the seizure of the said blood stained clothes from the accused
is not proved. Similarly, the fact that 'AB' group blood was found
on the said knife is also not of any use as its seizure from the
accused is also not proved. The seizure of the another knife at the
instance of the accused is also not proved as the said mediators also
did not support the said version of the prosecution. Even otherwise,
no blood was found on the said knife to connect the said knife to the
offence. Further, the blood group of the deceased was not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
established in this case. Admittedly, even though the blood of the
deceased was sent for examination, his blood group was not
identified as 'AB' blood group. In fact, his blood group could not be
identified. So, even if any blood of 'AB' group was found on the
clothes of the accused and the knife, it is of no use to connect to the
offence as the blood group of the deceased could not be established.
5.6 As already observed supra, there is no eye-witness to the
incident to prove that the accused is the culprit who attacked the
deceased and caused the said fatal injuries to him which are found
on his body in the post mortem examination, which ultimately,
resulted into his death. So, even though the medical evidence on
record proves that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained
by him which are found on his body, which are fatal in nature and
thereby, met with homicidal death, it is not proved in this case with
any acceptable legal evidence by the prosecution that it is the
accused who has caused the said injuries and that he is responsible
for the homicidal death of the deceased. So, the complicity of the
accused in commission of the said offence is not proved beyond any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
reasonable doubt.
5.7 Even though, PW-19, who is the brother of the deceased stated
that he has seen somebody quarreled with his brother, no Test
Identification Parade was held by the Investigation Officer to
identify the accused as the culprit. It is pertinent to note here that
even though PW-19 has shown the accused in the Court for the first
time at the time of giving evidence, he has admitted in his cross-
examination that he does not know the accused previously.
Therefore, when he has not prior acquaintance with the accused and
when he does not know him previously, his identification for the
first time in the Court after long lapse of time during the course of
trial cannot be believed and the said evidence cannot be accepted.
5.8 Therefore, after considering the said evidence on record and
on proper appreciation of the same, the trial Court arrived at a right
conclusion and found the accused not guilty of the said offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It does not suffer from any
legal flaw or infirmity. Upon considering the said evidence on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
record and on reappraisal of the same, we also found that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused with
acceptable legal evidence beyond all reasonable doubt and more
particularly, his identity as the person who was involved in
commission of the offence is not proved. There is not even a
semblance of evidence on record to that effect. Therefore, the
judgment of acquittal of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under
law and it warrants no interference in these appeals. So, the appeals
fail and are liable to be dismissed.
6. In fine, present appeals are dismissed affirming the judgment
of acquittal of the trial Court. Bail bond shall stand discharged.
R&P be returned to the trial Court, forthwith.
[ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ]
[ D. M. Vyas, J. ]
hiren/11tss2725
