Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jugnu Bhikhabhai Chaudhary on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1350 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
JUGNU BHIKHABHAI CHAUDHARY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. KRINA CALLA, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26.04.2013
rendered in Sessions Case No.1 of 2013 on the file of learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)
whereby the sole accused in the said case was acquitted of the
charges under Section 326 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
2. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal as per the prosecution
case may briefly be stated as under:
2.1. The deceased by name Bubuji Tasaji Thakor is a beggar in
Viramgam Railway Station (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased"). The accused by name Jugnu Bhikhabhai
Chaudhary is also a beggar in the same railway station. It is
stated that while both of them were taking their food at about
6 pm in the evening in the railway station on 16.09.2012, the
accused demanded the deceased to repay a sum of Rs.20/-
which was borrowed from him by the deceased. The
deceased replied that he would pay the same on next
Thursday. There was a quarrel in this connection that took
place between both of them. It is stated that the accused has
taken a knife, which is available with him and stabbed the
deceased with the said knife on his chest. The knife pierced
into the chest of the deceased. The accused ran-away from
the said place. The people who gathered there have called the
108 Ambulance and have taken the injured initially to
Mahatma Gandhi Hospital. From there, he was referred to
Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The knife which pierced and
stuck-up in the chest of the injured was taken out by the
Doctor in the said Hospital. However, a piece of the said
knife still remained inside the chest of the injured. He was
operated by another doctor and the said piece of the knife
was also removed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
2.2. While he was in the hospital, his statement was recorded by
the Assistant Sub-Inspector on 17.09.2012 at about 5:15 am.
The injured has given the statement stating that the accused
demanded him to repay the debt of Rs.20/- taken by him
from the accused and in the course of the said quarrel, the
accused stabbed him with the knife available with him. The
said statement was initially registered as a case for the
offences punishable under Section 326 of IPC. The case was
investigated. The investigating officer has recorded the
statements of the water vendor, examined as P.W.-12 and
another hawker at the railway station, examined as P.W.-13
and other witnesses. During the course of the investigation,
the investigating officer has arrested the accused on
17.09.2012 at about 4 pm in the railway station in the
presence of the mediators.
2.3. While so, the injured who was being treated in the hospital
ran-away from the hospital on 24.09.2012. He was re-
admitted in the hospital on 26.09.2012. While he was in the
hospital, he died on 04.10.2012.
2.4. On the receipt of intimation of his death, the police have
altered the FIR and included offence under Section 302 of
the IPC. The case was further investigated. Surprisingly, no
postmortem was held over the dead body of the deceased.
After completion of the investigation, the investigating
officer has filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the
offences punishable under Section 326 and 302 of the IPC in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the committal Court. As the offence under Section 302 of the
IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
committal Court has committed the said case to the Court of
Sessions Division for trial. Thereafter, it was made over to
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)
for trial. In the Trial Court, charges under Section 326 and
302 of the IPC were framed against the accused. The charges
are read over and explained to him. He denied the charges
and claimed to be tried. On his request, an amicus-curiae
counsel was appointed to defend him in the Trial Court.
2.5. During the Course of trial, the prosecution got examined
P.W.-1 to 15 witnesses and got marked 21 exhibits to
substantiate its case against the accused.
2.6. At completion of the trial, after considering the evidence on
record and the appreciation of the same, learned Trial Judge
had acquitted the accused of the aid charges on the ground
that the identity of the accused is not proved as the person
who attacked the deceased and caused the said stab injury to
him.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the instant appeal
questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment
of the acquittal.
4. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned
APP Ms. Krina Calla for the State at length.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
5. Despite service of notice of rule on respondent, he did not turn-
up for hearing. Thus, even after receipt of notice, for the
reasons best known to him, he has not chosen to appear before
the Court to contest this appeal. As it is an old matter of the
year 2013, which is listed as critically old matter before us,we
are not inclined to adjourn the hearing of the matter. Therefore,
we have decided to peruse the record and proceedings and to
dispose of the case on merits as per the material available on
record.
6. We have meticulously gone through the entire record, the
material available on record, the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and subjected the same to the judicial scrutiny.
7. As can be seen from the evidence adduced by the prosecution,
there are no eye-witnesses to the incident to prove that it is the
accused herein who had quarreled with the deceased and
stabbed him with a knife on his chest and caused injury to him.
The evidence of the investigating officer shows that P.W.-12,
who is the water vendor in the railway station and P.W.-13,
who is the hawker in the railway station and other witnesses,
only stated before him that they have seen two beggars
quarreling with each other, but they did not disclose the identity
of the person who has attacked the deceased with the knife and
caused injuries to him. They also did not say that it is the
accused herein who has quarreled with the deceased and
attacked him and stabbed him with the knife in his chest. Even
a perusal of the evidence of P.W.-12 and P.W.-13, clearly
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
shows that they did not state anything incriminating against the
accused herein stating that he is the person who has attacked
the deceased in the quarrel and stabbed him with the knife on
the chest. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.-12 and P.W.-13 is of
no use to the prosecution to prove and establish that it is the
accused who is the culprit who attacked the deceased and
stabbed him with the knife.
8. The prosecution also did not adduce any proper evidence to
prove the identity of the accused as the assailant who caused
the stab injury to the deceased. The investigating officer, who
has arrested the accused, has only stated in his evidence that he
has identified the accused as the person involved in the crime
by the description of the assailant given by the persons who
gathered at the place of incident. Therefore, the evidence of
investigating officer regarding identity of the assailant is
doubtful. Even though the deceased has given the name of the
assailant before the doctors who treated him and also in his
statement recorded by the police, it is significant to note here
that the investigating officer clearly admitted in his cross-
examination that he has not taken any steps to identify the
person who was arrested by him with the particulars of the
name given by the deceased. He has stated that he did not
collect any identity particulars of the assailant to compare his
name with the accused herein. Therefore, the arrest of the
accused by the investigating officer as the assailant is clearly
found to be doubtful as the identity of the real assailant is not
properly established in this case. At this juncture, it is germane
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
to note that even the mediators relating to the arrest did not
support the prosecution case. They did not say that the accused
was arrested in their presence in the railway station by the
investigating officer.
9. Apart from the above infirmities in the prosecution case, a
glaring defect in the case is that no postmortem was held over
the dead body of the deceased to find out his actual cause of
death. Therefore, it is not proved by the prosecution that
whether the deceased actually died on account of the said stab-
injury sustained by him or not. At this juncture, it is pertinent to
note that the incident taken place on 16.09.2012, the injured
ran-away from the hospital on 24.09.2012 and again he was
admitted in the hospital on 26.09.2012 and thereafter he died on
04.10.2012. Thus, there is significant gap of time between the
incident and the death. That be the case, in the absence of his
postmortem examination and in absence of the medical
evidence that he succumbed to the said injury, it is difficult to
hold that he died on account of the said injury sustained by him
in the said incident. It is also relevant to note here that the
doctor who treated the deceased, examined as P.W.-10,
categorically deposed in the cross-examination that if he has
taken the treatment, the chances of his death would be bleak.
Therefore, if he has not ran-away from the hospital on
24.09.2012 and if he has taken the treatment, he would not have
died. Therefore, when it is not proved in the case that he died
on account of the said injury sustained by him in the said
attack, it is difficult to hold even the real assailant is guilty for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
As already noticed supra, no postmortem examination is done
to find out the cause of the death. Mere recovery of knife
containing Blood group of the deceased by itself is not
sufficient to prove the case against the accused.
10. Thus, the prosecution case bristles from several fatal legal
infirmities and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of
the accused and more particularly, the identity of the assailant
with any acceptable legal evidence on record beyond all
reasonable doubt. At any rate, from the evidence on record, the
accused is at least entitled to benefit of doubt.
11. Before we part with this case, we would like to record the poor
and perfunctory investigation done by the investigating officer
in this case relating to grave offence of murder. It is really
beyond our comprehension as to why the investigating officer
did not take steps to hold autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased to find out the cause of death. No explanation is
forthcoming from him. It is not only the negligence on his part
in investigating a grave crime but there is clear dereliction of
duty also on his part. He also did not conduct proper
investigation to establish the identity of the assailant and to
prove that it is the accused who is the assailant in this case. The
entire investigation conducted by him clearly appears to be
perfunctory investigation which is not expected from a
responsible investigating officer who is investigating a grave
offence of murder.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
12. Upon considering the evidence on record and on proper
appreciation of the same, the trial Court has arrived at a right
conclusion and rightly acquitted the accused of the charges
leveled against him. Upon re-appraisal of the said evidence on
record, we are also of the same view that the prosecution failed
to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against
him with legal and cogent evidence beyond all reasonable
doubt. We do not find any legal flaw in the impugned judgment
of the acquittal of the trial Court. Therefore, it does not warrant
interference in this appeal and the same is not liable to be set
aside.
13. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of
acquittal of the Trial Court.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
