Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kiritsinh @ Karansinh Sidubha Jadeja on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 354 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
KIRITSINH @ KARANSINH SIDUBHA JADEJA & 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 : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.07.2012
passed in Sessions Case No. 109 of 2006 on the file of learned
Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, whereby, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who
are accused Nos. 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) in the said case were acquitted of
the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 326 r/w. 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 135(1) of the Bombay
Police Act.
2. Outlined facts of the prosecution case may stated as follow:
2.1 PW-1 is the complainant. He is the resident of Samrat
Ashoknagar in Jamnagar city. PW-2 and PW-6 are the sons of PW-1
and PW-3 is the daughter of PW-1. They all are residing together in
the house of PW-1. A1 is also the resident of the same street and he
is also residing nearby the house of PW-1. A2 and A3 are the
brothers of A1 and they are all residing together in one house.
2.2 It is stated that on 19.08.1995, at about 11:30 a.m., PW-1 was
hearing music in his tap-recorder. At the same time, A1 was also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
hearing the music in his tap-recorder at his house. As PW-1 was
hearing the tap-recorder with high volume of sound, A1 requested
him to reduce the volume of sound. But, it is stated that, he did not
pay heed to his request and did not reduce the volume. Therefore,
altercation took place between A1 and PW-1. So, it is stated, that
A1 to A3, who are the brothers, visited the house of PW-1 armed
with stick, axe and iron pipe. According to the prosecution, A1 was
armed with a stick, A2 was armed with an axe and A3 was armed
with an iron pipe and A1 to A3 attacked PW-1 and his sons PW-2
and PW-6 and his daughter PW-3. It is stated, that A1 beat PW-1
with stick on his head, left ear and hand and caused injuries to him
and that, A1 also beat PW-6 with the stick, A2 attacked PW-2 with
an axe and caused injuries to him and A3 attacked PW-3 with iron
pipe and caused injuries to him.
2.3 PW-4 who is the resident of the same street and who is the
their neighbour, witnessed the incident of A1 to A3 attacking the
PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6 with the said weapons.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
2.4 On the report lodged by PW-1 immediately on the date of
offence, police registered a case against the A1 to A3 for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 326 and 114 of the
IPC and under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
2.5 A1 to A3 were arrested on the next day i.e. 20.08.1995. On
interrogation, it is stated that they disclosed before the police that
they would show the place where they have hidden the weapons i.e.
the stick, axe and iron pipe and that, if the police accompany them,
that they would show the place where the weapons were hidden.
Accordingly, they led the police to the place where they have hidden
the said weapons and at the instance of A1, that the stick was
recovered and at the instance of A3, that iron pipe was recovered in
the presence of the mediators who are examined as PW-9 to PW-11.
A panchnama was prepared at that time.
2.6 The injured PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6 were sent for medical
examination. It is stated that they were admitted in the hospital but
PW-1 went away from the hospital unauthorizedly against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
medical advice. The doctor who examined them has issued the
Injury Certificates.
2.7 After completion of investigation, eventually, the police have
filed the Charge-sheet against the A1 to A3 for the aforesaid
offences.
2.8 In the trial Court, charges for the offence punishable under
Sections 307, 323, 326 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 135(1)
of the Bombay Police Act were framed against the accused. They
denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
2.9 In the trial that took place, the prosecution got examined PW-1
to PW-12 witnesses and got marked six exhibits to substantiate its
case against the accused.
2.10 After conclusion of the trial, upon considering the said
evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court
found A1 to A3 not guilty for any of the charges that are levelled
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
against them and accordingly, acquitted them of all the said charges
by the impugned judgment.
2.11 Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has
preferred the instant appeal questioning the legality and validity of
the said judgment of acquittal.
3. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard
Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
appellant - State. Despite service of notice of rule on A1 to A3, they
did not turn up for hearing in this appeal. None appeared on their
behalf also. Therefore, as it is an old mater of the year 2013 and as
it is listed under the caption, "Critically Old Matters" on the board
before us for final hearing, we are not inclined to adjourn the
hearing. However, to give a fair opportunity to them, we have
adjourned the matter from 25.06.2025 to his date. Today also, none
appeared on their behalf. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of
the appeal as per the material available on record, on merits.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
4. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution against the
accused, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the injured
witnesses - PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6. As noticed supra, PW-2,
PW-6 and PW-3 are the sons and daughter of PW-1. Apart from the
said testimony of the injured witnesses, prosecution has also relied
on the evidence of the independent witness, who is examined as PW-
4, who is the resident of the same street where both the accused and
the injured witnesses have been residing and this PW-4 is their
neighbour. Prosecution has also relied on the evidence of mediators
examined as PW-9 to PW-11 in proof of recovery of the two
weapons i.e. the stick and the iron pipe, at the instance of A1 and
A2.
4.1 While appreciating the said evidence on record, at the very
outset, it is relevant to note that PW-4, who is the independent
witness, turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and did not
support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, her evidence is not
of any avail to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused.
Similarly, the mediators relating to recovery of weapons in this case,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
examined as PW-9 to PW-11, also turned hostile and they also did
not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the fact that A1 to A3
made a disclosure statement regarding the place where they have
hidden the weapons and led the police and mediators to the said
place and at the instance of A1 and A3, the stick and the iron pipe
respectively, were recovered, is not proved in this case.
4.2 The other weapon i.e. the axe, said to have been used by A2, is
not at all recovered in this case. Further, as can be seen from the
evidence of the injured witnesses, they completely eliminated the
presence of A3 at the scene of offence and they did not state
anything regarding complicity of A3 in committing the said offence
or causing injuries to PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6. Therefore, it is
evident that A3 was falsely implicated in this case, initially at the
time of lodging the FIR. So, only the case against the A1 and A2 is
required to be considered to ascertain whether they attacked the PW-
1 to PW-3 and PW-6 and caused any injury to them or not.
Although, PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6 spoke against them in their
evidence, a close scrutiny of the said evidence clearly reveals that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
their evidence suffers from glaring inconsistencies. The weapons
said to have been used by A1 and A2 in causing the injuries varies
and differs from witness to witness of these injured witnesses. One
says that A1 has used the stick and the other says that A1 has used
iron pipe and similarly, one says that A2 has used axe, which is not
recovered in this case, and the other says that A2 has used the stick.
Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses
regarding the actual weapons said to have been used by A1 and A2
in causing the injuries to them which makes the testimony given by
them against the A1 and A2 doubtful. So, when there is glaring
inconsistency in their evidence regarding the weapons that are used
by A1 and A2, it is not safe to place complete reliance on their
testimony for the purpose of arriving at any definite conclusion
regarding the complicity of A1 and A2 also in commission of the
said offence against them. The fact that the said witnesses have
completely eliminated the presence of A3 and the false implication
of A3, throws any amount of doubt regarding the veracity of the
version of the prosecution even regarding causing injuries to PW-1
to PW-3 by A1 and A2. Though, PW-6 is also shown as an injured
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
witness, as per the medical evidence on record, he did not sustain
any injury. This is another ground which makes the prosecution
case doubtful. Thus, the case of the prosecution suffers from several
fatal legal infirmities and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
not of any sterling worth so as to arrive at any definite conclusion
that A1 and A2 have attacked the PW-1 to PW-3 and caused injuries
to them. At any rate, as rightly held by the trial Court, the evidence
emanating from the record throws any amount of doubt on the
prosecution version and the case against the accused is not proved
beyond any reasonable doubt.
4.3 In a criminal trial, the cardinal principle of law is proof beyond
reasonable doubt and the accusation made against the accused as per
the charges levelled against them is to be proved and established
with strict legal evidence, beyond any doubt. Such standard of proof
is lacking in this case as per above discussion. Therefore, the trial
Court has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused after
undertaking thorough assay of the evidence on record. So, the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is based on proper
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/354/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
appreciation of evidence on record and it does not suffer from any
patent illegality warranting interference in this appeal.
4.4 After considering the evidence on record and upon reappraisal
of the same, we also found that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution is not of any sterling worth and it bristles from fatal
legal infirmities and that it is not safe to place reliance on the same.
Therefore, we fully concur with the findings recorded by the trial
Court. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is perfectly
sustainable under law and it calls for no interference in this appeal.
So, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.
5. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the
trial Court. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. R&P be
returned to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
[ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ]
[ D. M. Vyas, J. ]
hiren/18tss9725
