Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rupabhai Motibhai Pargi on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 630 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
RUPABHAI MOTIBHAI PARGI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMANT MAKWANA(3622) 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 : 17/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. This is an appeal preferred by the State. Challenge in
this appeal is to the judgment dated 31/01/2014 passed in
Sessions Case No.165 of 2012 on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod whereby the accused, who
are A-1 to A-4 in the said case were acquitted of the offences
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
punishable under Section 436 read with Section 114 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:
2.1. The daughter-in-law of the de-facto complainant, who is
examined as PW-1, contested the election of the Sarpanch of
the Gram Panchayat against the wife of A-3. The daughter-in-
law of PW-1 lost said the election against the wife of A-3. So it
is stated that on 20/05/2012, at about 2:30 a.m. in the night
that A-1 to A-4, who got political rivalry against the family of
PW-1, came in a jeep to the house of the PW-1 and have set
fire to one room of the house of PW-1, which is of dry wheat
grass roof. PW-1 and his wife, PW-2 woke up at that time who
were sleeping in another room of the same house. They
shouted after seeing their house being gutted in fire and
hearing the said shouts, the people in the vicinity woke up and
gathered there. PW-7, who is the son of PW-1, who was also
sleeping with PW-1 in his house also woke up and has seen
the accused at the scene of offence. After seeing the people
who gathered there, A-1 to A-4 escaped and went away in
their jeep.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
2.2. On the next day at about 11:00 a.m., PW-1 lodged a
report with the police. A case for the offences punishable
under Section 436 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal
Code was registered against the accused. It was investigated
and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable under
Sections436 and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The committal court has committed the said case for
trial to the court of sessions division. Thereafter, the case is
made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod for trial.
The trial court has framed charges under Section 436 and
Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code against A-1 to A-4. They
denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial, PW-1 to PW-9, witnesses are
examined and five exhibits are marked to substantiate the
case of the prosecution. After completion of the trial, the trial
court has acquitted the accused of the charges.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned
judgment of acquittal.
6. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.Bhargav Pandya for the State and learned counsel
Mr.Hemant Makwana appearing for the respondents.
7. It is not in dispute that wife of A-3 contested the election
of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat against the daughter-in-law of
PW-1 and wife of A-3 has won the election. The motive that
was attributed by the prosecution to the accused to set fire to
the house of PW-1 is political rivalry. But except contesting
the election, there is no evidence adduced to show that any
serious political rivalry is existing between the accused and
the family of PW-1. When the wife of A-3 has won the election
against the daughter-in-law of PW-1, it is beyond any
comprehension as to why the accused has to resort to the said
act of setting fire to the house of PW-1.
8. Be that as it may, as per the prosecution case, the
offence took place during the night time at about 2:30 a.m. on
the date of offence. Admittedly, it was dark at that time. PW-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
1, who is the complainant and his wife, PW-2 and their son,
PW-7 are only the eye witnesses examined in this case. PW-1
has stated in his evidence that he has seen the accused in the
light of the electrical pole (i.e. street light) which is on the
road at the scene of offence. PW-7, who is the son, also
deposed that he has seen the accused in the light of electrical
pole which is available at the scene of offence. But, PW-2,
who is the wife of PW-1, deposed that she has seen the
accused in the light of the fire emitting from the house which
was gutted in fire. She did not say that any such electrical
pole was available at the scene of offence. Now, it is
significant to note that PW-9, who is the Investigating Officer,
clearly deposed in his evidence that there is no such electrical
pole at the scene of offence. Therefore, it is now evident that
the testimony given by PW-1 and PW-7 that they have
identified the accused with the source of light of the electrical
pole is absolutely false. When the offence took place during
night time at about 2:30 a.m. and when it was dark at that
time, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 have to explain as to how they
have seen the accused during the night time and how they
have identified them. As the evidence given to that effect is
found to be intrinsically untrustworthy and not believable,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
their testimony given to that effect is liable to be discarded.
Except the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7, who all belong
to one family, no other independent witness from the vicinity
was examined to prove that the accused were present at the
scene of offence when the house was gutted in the fire or that
they have actually set fire to the said house. Further, even
according to the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, they have only
seen A-4 holding a Can with kerosene oil. It is not stated that
they have actually seen the accused setting fire to the house.
Therefore, the said evidence adduced by the prosecution is
not at all sufficient to prove the accusation made against the
accused to the hilt and to establish the charges levelled
against them. The grass available on the house which is said
to have been gutted in fire was also not sent to forensic
laboratory for examination to ascertain whether it contains
any kerosene oil or petrol. Even the Can which is said to have
been used is also not seized in this case. The recovery of jeep
at another place is of no use to the case of prosecution to
establish the gilt against the accused.
9. Therefore, the trial court has rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and held that the prosecution has failed to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
prove that it is A-1 to A-4 who have set fire to the house of the
accused. After considering the evidence on record and on
appreciation of the same, we do not find any legal infirmity in
the said findings recorded by the trial court on proper
appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution. Upon
reappraisal of the evidence, we are also of the view that the
prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused
with any acceptable legal evidence. Therefore, there are no
valid and legal grounds emanating from the record to
interfere with the judgment of acquittal of the trial court.
10. So, the appeal fails and the same is liable to be
dismissed. In fine, the appeal is dismissed. Notice of
admission is discharged. Bail bond, shall stand cancelled.
Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the
concerned court.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
