Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rupabhai Valabhai Patel on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1497
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
RUPABHAI VALABHAI PATEL & ORS.
=================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HETA PANCHAL, for HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for
the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2013
rendered in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2011 on the file of the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Dahod, whereby, the respondent Nos. 1 to
5, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in the said case, were acquitted of the
charges for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 506(2), 147
and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Fact germane to dispose of this appeal may briefly be stated as
follow:
2.1 The complainant by name Manishaben Mahendrasinh
Chauhan is the resident of Dabhwa Faliya, presently residing at:
Dogawada, Taluka: Devgadh Bariya. Mahendrasinh is her husband.
It is stated that on 12.12.2009 at about 8:30 p.m. in the night time,
PW-3 who is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who is examined
as PW-1, came to the house of PW-1 and informed her that her
husband, while driving a Jeep, dashed against the son and the son-in-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
law of Accuse No. 1 (A-1) and that, they died in the said accident
and A-1 got enraged and that, he is coming with A-2 to A-5 towards
her house. At that time, it is stated that, PW-1, who is the
complainant and her brother-in-law who is examined as PW-2 and
her sister-in-law who is examined as PW-3, have seen A-1 to A-5
coming towards their house while they were inside the house. It is
stated that A-1 was carrying a Dhariya (Scythe), A-2 and A-3 were
carrying sticks and A-4 and A-5 were holding two kerosene tins with
them and that, they all came to her house and set fire to her brick and
wooden house and her house was gutted in fire. Immediately, PW-1
to PW-3 came out of the house from the backdoor and they escaped
and ran away from that place.
2.2 Thereafter, on 08.05.2010, almost after five months, PW-1
lodged a report with the police relating to the said incident. The
police registered the said report as a case for the offences punishable
under Sections 436, 506(2), 147 and 148 of the IPC. The case was
investigated. The expert of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)
visited the scene of offence on the requisition made by the police.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
He has observed the scene of offence. He found nothing
incriminating like kerosene tins or any material to show that the
house was set fire with kerosene. The scene of offence was
observed by the police in the presence of PW-4 and PW-5, mediators
and scene of offence observation report was prepared.
2.3 After completion of investigation, police filed the Charge-
sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
436, 506(2), 147 and 148 of the IPC.
2.4 The trial Court framed the charges for the offences punishable
under Sections 436, 506(2), 147 and 148 of the IPC against the
accused. The accused denied the said charges and claimed to be
tried.
2.5 During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1
to PW-12 witnesses and got marked five exhibits to substantiate its
case against the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
2.6 At the end of the trial, on appreciation of the evidence on
record, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of any of the
charges levelled against them and acquitted them of all the charges
by the impugned judgment.
2.7 Therefore, aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the
State has preferred the present appeal against the respondents
assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of
acquittal.
3. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard
Ms. Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
appellant - State and Ms. Heta Panchal, learned counsel for the
respondents - accused.
3.1 The genesis of the offence appears to be the alleged accident
said to have been caused by the husband of PW-1 while driving the
Jeep resulting into the death of the son and the son-in-law of A-1.
So, it is stated that A-1, out of infuriation, bore grudge against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
husband of PW-1 and he came along with A-2 to A-5 to attack the
family members of the husband of PW-1 and in the said process,
they have gutted the house of PW-1 in fire. In essence, this is the
motive that was attributed to the accused to commit the said offence
of Arson punishable under Section 436 of the IPC.
3.2 However, as can be seen from the evidence on record, except
making a bald assertions to this effect, attributing the said motive to
the accused, absolutely there is no evidence adduced by the
prosecution to prove that any such accident occurred while the
husband of PW-1 was driving the Jeep and that the son and the son-
in-law of A-1 died in the said accident. So, the alleged motive that
is attributed to the accused for committing the said offence of Arson,
is not proved and established by adducing any semblance of
evidence to that effect.
3.3 Be that as it may, the relevant witnesses who were examined
to prove that the accused gutted the house of PW-1 in fire are PW-1
to PW-3. PW-1 is the complainant, PW-2 is her brother-in-law and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
PW-3 is her sister-in-law. Although, they stated that they have seen
the A-1 to A-5 coming towards their house while A-1 was holding a
Dhariya, A-2 and A-3 were holding sticks and A-4 and A-5 were
holding kerosene tins, in the cross-examination of PW-3, she
prevaricated from the said evidence and only stated that she has only
seen a mob coming towards their house and thereafter, they ran
away from the backdoor of their house. This clearly indicates that
their evidence given in examination-in-chief that they have seen A-1
to A-5 coming towards their house while holding Dhariya, sticks and
kerosene tins, is absolutely false. Further, the alleged incident took
place at 8:30 p.m. during night time. Distance from which they have
seen the accused coming to their house is not clearly spoken to by
PW-1 to PW-3. Nothing is emanating from the evidence on record
to prove that there are any street lights or any lights available at the
scene of offence or in that street to enable PW-1 to PW-3 to properly
identify A-1 to A-5 as the persons who are in the mob, who
approached their house with the said Dhariya, sticks and kerosene
tins. Even, as can be seen from the scene of offence observation
report, there is nothing to indicate in it that there are any street lights
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
or any lights available at the scene of offence for PW-1 to PW-3 to
properly identify A-1 to A-5 during that night time. Further, the
PW-1 admitted in her cross-examination that at that time, they can
only identify the persons from a distance of 10 feet only. Therefore,
there is no evidence to show that there are street lights or any lights
at the scene of offence. Further, PW-1 to PW-3 have only seen a
mob approaching their house. So, in the absence of any source of
light at the scene of offence, the evidence given by them that they
have seen A-1 to A-5 approaching their house with Dhariya, sticks
and kerosene tins, is intrinsically untrustworthy and not believable at
all. At any rate, as there is no source of light to identify the
assailants, one cannot arrive at any definite conclusion that it is A-1
to A-5 approached their house and committed the said offence of
Arson. Further, PW-1 to PW-3 did not speak regarding the
independent overt acts of A-1 to A-5. They did not say anything by
giving the details as to who poured the kerosene on the house and
who lit the fire and how they lit the fire, whether it is with
matchstick or otherwise, is not clarified. Therefore, there is no
proper evidence on record to definitely prove with certainty that A-1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
to A-5 have poured kerosene and set fire to the house of PW-1. PW-
1 to PW-3 did not say that they have seen any of these accused
pouring kerosene on the house and setting fire to the house.
3.4 It is also significant to note that when the expert of FSL
examined the said scene of offence, he did not find any
incriminating evidence or material like kerosene tins or ashes
containing kerosene or matchstick or any explosives at the scene of
offence. There is no FSL report at all on record. Therefore, how the
house was gutted in fire, whether any kerosene was used or not, is
not proved with any scientific evidence on record. No kerosene tins
are also seized. Even the ashes relating to that burnt house, is not
seized for examination by the expert of FSL.
3.5 Further, the offence took place on 12.12.2009. The FIR was
lodged five months thereafter on 08.05.2010. Thus, there is
inordinate and abnormal delay in lodging the FIR. Although, an
attempt was made to explain the said delay stating that the family
members of PW-1 were not allowed to enter the village and that, due
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
to fear, they did not enter the village and after five months, that they
entered the village and thereafter, they lodged the FIR, the said
explanation is not satisfactory and it cannot be believed. Even
though, they were not allowed to enter the village, nothing prevented
them to approach the police to lodge the report immediately after the
incident, within a reasonable time. Therefore, the very lodging of
the FIR with a delay of five months against A-1 to A-5, throws any
amount of doubt regarding their false implication in this case. As
noticed supra, the very motive attributed to A-1 to commit the
offence along with A-2 to A-5 is not proved and established in this
case. This throws any amount of doubt regarding the complicity of
A-1 to A-5 in perpetrating the said offence. Therefore, the
cumulative effect of all the above discussed circumstances and facts
leads to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the aforesaid
offences with acceptable legal evidence beyond any reasonable
doubt. At any rate, they are at least entitled to benefit of doubt in the
given facts and circumstances of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1497/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
3.6 After considering the said evidence on record and on proper
appreciation of the same, the trial Court arrived at a right conclusion
and recorded a finding of acquittal against the accused. We do not
find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of
acquittal. After considering the said evidence on record and on
reappraisal of the same, we are also of the same view that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the said
charges. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal warrants no
interference in this appeal. The appeal fails and it is liable to be
dismissed.
4. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the
trial Court. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. R&P be
remitted back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.
[ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ]
[ D. M. Vyas, J. ]
hiren/11tss8725
