Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kidiyabhai Bhurkabhai Damor on 20 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/757/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 757 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KIDIYABHAI BHURKABHAI DAMOR & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 20/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. Challenging the judgment dated 15.02.2014 passed in Sessions
Case No.125 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Dahod, whereby the respondents herein, who are accused nos.1 to 6 in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/757/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
said case, were acquitted of the charges under Sections 143, 436 and 504
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC"), the present appeal is
preferred by the State.
2. As per the prosecution version, PW-4 is the sister-in-law of PW-1,
who is the de-facto complainant in this case. PW-4 got a daughter by
name Bambaben, who is a major girl. It is alleged that earlier, the brother-
in-law of accused no.4 has abducted her. Thereafter, PW-4, who is the
mother is able secured her presence. PW-4 and her daughter are living
with PW-1 in her house. On 18.07.2011, it is stated, that accused nos.1 to
6 came to the house of PW-1 at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening and
demanded PW-1 and PW-4 to send back the said girl along with them. In
this connection, there was a quarrel between them. When PW-1 and PW-4
shouted against them, the accused left the house and went away while
abusing PW-1 and PW-4 in a filthy language.
3. On the next day morning at about 5:00 a.m. on 19.07.2011, it is
stated, that accused nos.1 to 6 came to the house of PW-1 and when all
the family members of PW-1 were sleeping in their house that they gutted
the house of PW-1 and fire. After seeing the fire flames, PW-1 and PW-4
woke up and came out of the house along with the children and at that
time, they have seen accused nos.1 to 6 present outside the house and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/757/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
accused no.1 holding a kerosene bottle. It is also stated that PW-1 has
seen accused no.2 setting fire to the house with a matchstick. After seeing
PW-1 and PW-4, all the accused ran away from the scene of offence.
4. After receiving information from PW-1 regarding the incident, the
son of PW-1 informed the personnel of the fire station over phone that
their house was gutted in fire. Immediately they came with the fire engine
and extinguished the fire.
5. On the report lodged by PW-1, police registered the case against
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 436 and 504
of the IPC. The case was investigated. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed against accused nos.1 to 6 for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 436 and 504 of the IPC.
6. After the case was committed to the sessions division as the
offence under Section 436 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the court of
sessions, it was made over to learned Additional Sessions Court, Dahod
for the trial. Charges under Sections 143, 436 and 504 of the IPC were
framed against the accused by the trial court. The accused denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/757/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
7. During the course of trial PW-1 to PW-6 were examined and three
exhibits were marked to substantiate the case of the prosecution against
the accused. At the culmination of the trial, eventually, all the accused
were acquitted of the said charges.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred, as noticed
supra, by the State assailing the legality and validity of the impugned
judgment of acquittal.
9. We have heard learned APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya for the State.
Although the respondent nos.1 to 6 are being represented by learned
counsel Mr.U.M.Shashtri, who is appearing for them, he did not appear
before the Court when the matter is taken up for hearing. Even at 11:30
a.m. also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. As it is
an old matter of the year 2014, which is 11 years' old case, we are not
inclined to adjourn the matter, particularly as it is listed as a critically old
matter for final hearing. Therefore, we have perused the record and
proceedings meticulously. Therefore, the case is being disposed of on
merits after hearing learned APP and after going through the record and
proceedings and the evidence on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/757/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
10. As noticed supra, PW-1 to PW-6 were examined to substantiate the
prosecution case. PW-1 and PW-4 are the inmates of the said house and
they are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-2 and PW-3 are
only the panch witnesses for observation of the scene of offence. They
did not support the prosecution case. PW-5 is a panch witness for the
arrest of the accused and he also did not support the prosecution case.
PW-6 is the Investigating Officer. So, there remains only evidence of PW-
1 and PW-4, who are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident. Even PW-
4, who is the sister-in-law of PW-1 did not support the prosecution case
and she has shown her volte-face to the prosecution and turned hostile to
the prosecution case. Although it is stated that she has clearly stated in her
statement before the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, that she has seen the accused outside the house after the
they came out after they noticed the flames on their house, she did not say
so in her evidence before the court. Therefore, in the substantial evidence
given by her before the trial court, she did not speak anything
incriminating against the accused stating that she has seen the accused
outside the house or that she has seen the accused or any one of them
setting fire to the house. Similarly, PW-1 also did not state in any specific
terms that she has seen any one of the accused actually setting fire to the
house of PW-1. There is nothing to indicate from the evidence of both
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/757/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
PW-1 and PW-4 to prove the complicity of the accused nos.1 to 6 in
committing the said offence of arson by setting the fire to the house of
PW-1. Therefore, there is absolutely no valid evidence on record to
substantiate the case of the prosecution against accused nos.1 to 6
regarding the charges that are leveled against them and to prove the
allegations ascribed against them by the prosecution.
11. At this juncture, the fact that there are some disputes between the
family of PW-1 and PW-4 and accused no.4 should not be lost sight of. It
has come out from the record that the earlier the daughter of PW-4 and
brother-in-law of accused no.4 together went away. Though it is the
version of prosecution that it is the case of abduction, there is nothing on
record to show that whether she was actually abducted by the brother-in-
law of accused no.4 or whether they both voluntarily went away together
or not. So, when dispute in this regard is existing between them, the
possibility of PW-1 and PW-4 having an axe to grind against the accused
in connection with the said dispute by roping them in this case cannot be
ruled out.
12. At any rate, the case of the prosecution as per the allegations
ascribed against the accused is not proved with any acceptable legal
evidence on record as discussed it supra beyond any reasonable doubt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/757/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
The trial court after considering the said evidence on record and on
proper appreciation of the same, arrived at a right conclusion and thereby,
acquitted the said accused of the said charges. After considering the said
evidence on record and on reappraisal of the same, we do not find any
legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal and we are
also of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to substantiate its
case against the accused with any acceptable legal evidence.
13. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is perfectly
sustainable under law and it warrants no interference in this appeal and
appeal is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ABHISHEK
