Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ramesh Somabhai Amaliyar on 5 May, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 42 of 2000
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESH SOMABHAI AMALIYAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS JAYSHREE C BHATT(170) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 05/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI)
1. Heard Ms.Dhwani Tripathi learned APP
appearing for the appellant herein.
2. This is an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
appellant herein is aggrieved by the judgement
and order of the acquittal passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at
Godhara, in Sessions Case No.148 of 1997 dated
02.07.1998.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 06/05/1997 at
19:30 hrs, the accused, namely Ramesh
Somabhai Amaliyar, by luring and enticing
Samudiben, the minor daughter of the
complainant, Shakariyabhai Ditiyabhai, with an
intention to have sexual intercourse with her
before marriage, forcefully pulled Samudiben
from a place near Dahod Town Taluka Panchayat
Office and compelled her to board the rickshaw
bearing registration no. GJ-17/U-188; thus by
abducting her from the lawful guardianship of
the complainant, Shakariya Ditiyabhai, the
accused, namely Ramesh Soma, raped and had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
sexual intercourse with her; and Bhagvandas,
Virsinh Chhaganbhai and Kikabhai, viz. accused
no. 2 to 5, by aiding and abetting him, and
thereby they have committed an offense
punishable under sections 363, 366, 376, 114 of
I.P.C.
3.1 Ditiyabhai Sagadiya, the complainant in the
case, filed a complaint regarding the case at
Dahod Town Police Station on 08/05/1997. As
mentioned in the complaint, he resides at
Borwani village with family, and he has four boys
and three daughters. Khuman is the eldest son,
followed by the daughter, Samudi, who is
married and lives with her in-laws, then
Samudiben, who is a bachelor and lives with him.
On the day of incident, the complainant, his son,
Kuman, and Samudiben, and other ladies from
the village, thus all the three, father-children,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
went for work at about seven o'clock in the
morning at the Khan river where the work of the
bridge was underway. They did labor work all
day and at about six-thirty in the evening, all the
three, father-daughters, came to Dahod from
work in a rickshaw. They alighted at the
marketing yard. He was paying the fare of the
rickshaw. While Khuman and Samudi were
walking towards the crossroads near the Taluka
Panchayat Office, and the complainant was
following them. Meanwhile, at about seven-thirty
in the evening, Ramesh Soma Amaliyar, R/o
Gagaliyavad, Nadi Faliya, was standing beside
the rickshaw near the Taluka Panchayat Office.
He was trying to take his daughter, Samudi,
inside the rickshaw by pulling her. Meanwhile,
his son, Khuman, rushed to Samudi and was
trying to alight her from the rickshaw. Therefore,
Ramesh Soma went after Khuman to attack him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
As he got closer at that time, Ramesh Soma, took
away his daughter, Samudi, by pulling her inside
the rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-17,U-
188. Her daughter, Samudi, is thirteen years old.
3.2 Thus, the complainant has submitted
complaint that the lady witness, his daughter,
Samudi, a minor, has been taken away from his
guardianship, by luring and enticing her to be his
wife, he has requested for investigation in this
regard.
4. Ms.Tripathi the learned APP submits that the
order impugned is contrary to law and facts on
record and principles of natural justice. It is
submitted that the same is required to be
quashed and set aside.
4.1 Ms.Tripathi submits that the deposition of
Samudiben below Exh.12 is not considered in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
right spirit wherein the prosecutrix clearly
deposed on oath that as on the date of the
incident while she was returning home, the
respondent-accused kidnapped her and was
taken her to village:Delsar, where she was
sexually enjoyed by the accused twice and
thereafter early in the morning by memu train
she was taken to village:Anas as referred to in
ground (C) and there also she was sexually
enjoyed by the accused three times during night.
She has also deposed that from village Anas she
was taken to village Sabrala and there also she
was sexually enjoyed by the accused four times
and submitted that the competent Court ought to
have seen that the prosecutrix Samudiben had
identified the accused Ramesh Kalia and
Chhagan Baria.
4.2 It was submitted by Ms.Tripathi that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
competent Court has failed to appreciate
deposition of PW-7 Fataliben Narsinghbai who
was examined by the prosecution where she
supported the case of the respondent-accused.
The fact that the respondent-accused came to
Taluka Panchayat Chokdi and from there she was
kidnapped and taken by the accused in the
rickshaw.
4.3 She further submitted that the evidence of
the school teacher Chhaganbhai Hakjib who was
examined by the prosecution at Exh.34 was not
properly appreciated wherein it was deposed
that the birth date of the prosecutrix as on date
of the incident was 10.04.1980. The leaving
certificate is also produced below Exh.20. It is
submitted that the competent Court has
committed an error in giving undue importance
to minor omissions and contradictions in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
evidence.
4.4 It was finally submitted by Ms.Tripathi that
in light of the aforesaid submissions, the
impugned judgement wherein the respondent
herein is acquitted is required to be quashed and
set aside.
5. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the
prosecution, the trial Court recorded further
statements of private opponents as provided u/s
313 of the Code, wherein, the private opponents
herein denied their involvement in the offence
and stated that false case has been filed against
them. After hearing both the sides and after
appreciating evidence adduced by the
prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the
private opponents herein from the charge of
offence under sections 363, 366, 376, 114 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
I.P.C.
6. Having heard Ms.Tripathi learned APP appearing
for the appellant herein and having considered
the documents produced on record, it emerges
that the competent Court while passing the
impugned judgement and order dated
02.07.1998 considered the evidence on record.
This Court has also considered the evidence
which is placed on record from which it emerges
that considering the deposition of the PW-10
which is produced at page 201, the school
leaving certificate is placed on record by Exh.20,
wherein, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is
10.04.1980 and in view thereof, the age of the
prosecutrix was 17 years at the time of the
incident. The complainant i.e. the father of the
petitioner lodged the FIR after 3 days of the date
of incident. It further emerges that the PW
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
Nos.3 and 4 are hostile. The doctor's certificate
below Exh.21 and Exh.22 are produced on
record, however the doctor is not examined.
7. We deem it fit to discuss the scope of the
principle of an appeal against acquittal. While it
is not in dispute that an Appellate Court has full
power to review, reappreciate and consider the
evidence , upon which the acquittal is ordered.
However, it is also well settled principle of law
that the Appellate Court should be slow in
disbursing the finding of fact arrived at by the
competent Court who had advantage of seeing
witnesses while ordering acquittal. Generally
the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with
because the presumption of innocence of the
accused is further strengthened by the acquittal.
The powers under this Section are not
circumscribed as it powers while exercising
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
Revision Application. The Courts will not
interfere with the order of acquittal unless there
are reasons compelling and in those cases
judgements are so perverse and based on
material that the order is required to be
interfered with.
8. The additional statement of the accused is
recorded under Section 313 of Criminal
Procedure Code. It is apt to reproduce the
relevant paras of the impugned judgement
passed by the competent Court dated 02.07.1998
passed in Sessions Case No.148 of 1997. The
translation of relevant paras of the impugned
judgement is reproduced as under:
"(15) Now, if we look at the facts of the
cross-examination of the complainant and
other witnesses, there appears contradiction
in evidence of the complainant. The
complainant mentioned the name of the
accused, Ramesh Soma, in the complaint,
but cannot identify him in the Court. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
complainant in his complaint mentioned that
he saw Ramesh Soma taking away Samudi
and also mentioned the registration number
of the rickshaw, while in the evidence,
stated that his son, Khuman, had taken
away Samudi. Hence, there appears
contradiction in the evidence of the
complainant. Thus, it does not transpire
from his evidence that the complainant saw
that the accused in this case or anyone of
the accused forcefully took away the victim,
Samudi.
If we look at the facts of the evidence of
cross-examination of the complainant, the
witness admits the fact that Khan river can
be reached from Dahod through Mandav
road, and a number of rickshaws commute
on that road. None among the accused was
coming to work with him. They and others
alighted at market crossroads on the day of
incident. The rickshaw in which they came
had the capacity to carry forty to fifty
persons. He does not remember their
names. Persons with him started walking
towards the market on their own, while he
stopped for making the payment; and after
making the payment, he along with other six
to seven boys went to Khareda crossroads.
Those boys belonged to his family and
neighbors, and they went to Khareda
crossroads from Mandav crossroads. It did
not take them even a minute, and when they
reached, Khuman shouted that the girl had
been taken away in the rickshaw.
The witness further states that the boy,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
Khuman, came and stated that the girl had
been beaten and taken away in the
rickshaw, and that he did not know who took
her away. The witness states the fact during
cross-examination that they searched for
half an hour, but not succeeding in it, he, his
son and Chiniyo Sabrala went to the Police
Station, and then all three dictated the
complaint. Thumb impression of two
persons were taken on the complaint, and
they were taken on a single paper. It took
half an hour for dictating the complaint, and
they returned home thereafter. This witness
further stated that along with other fifty to
sixty persons, he visited police station in the
morning and it was requested to produce
the said girl. Custody of the girl was handed
over in the evening at 6 pm. The girl was
alone and she was inquired. The girl may
have declared to the police the names of the
persons who took her to Galaliyawad.
Therefore, police had given names. After
handing over the girl and stating the names,
the police did not write complaint. However,
the witness accepted that after lodging the
complaint, the girl was handed over at 6 pm
on next day. The witness also stated that no
names were mentioned in the complaint.
However, upon considering the
complaint, name of accused Ramesh Soma
was mentioned in it. Therefore, it appears in
view of the said fact that the said name was
mentioned in the complaint after the girl
was handed over and after learning the
name, thus, the complaint must have been
lodged later on.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
During cross-examination, the witness
stated that according to him, he had gone to
lodge the complaint at the police station on
the same day when the girl was taken away.
Further, it has not happened that the
complaint was lodged two days after the girl
was taken away. This witness accepted that
correct date of birth of his daughter was
mentioned at the time of her admission to
school.
Accordingly, considering the said facts,
no details mentioned by the complainant in
this case transpires on record. Upon
considering the facts of the complaint, it
appears that this complaint was given on
the third day of the incident. Therefore, on
the basis of name of the accused mentioned
in the complaint, it can be said that the
complaint was given after the girl was found
or the complaint was given later on.
The witness further states that his son
was beaten by them with the sticks. He had
sustained injuries in the back, feet and
hands. However, separate complaint was
not lodged in that regard.
Upon considering the said details, it
does not transpire on record that son of the
complainant had sustained injuries.
(16) Upon considering evidence from
cross-examination of the victim Samudiben,
she has stated that primarily the accused
Ramesh Soma committed rape on her i.e.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
she states that Ramesh had sexual
intercourse with her. As stated in her
examination in chief, she was held by people
of Sabrala village, but she has not stated as
to who had held her. As stated in her
examination in chief, two accused persons
were present in the Court who had taken
her away but she did not know their names.
She has not stated their roles in taking her
away.
This witness accepted during her cross-
examination that her age was mentioned as
seventeen years before the police. This
witness denies the fact that Ramesh was
doing masonry work at the construction
work of bridge. She also stated that she did
not know Ramesh before the incident. She
further stated that Ramesh was doing slab
work with machine.
Further, the aforesaid witness stated
that she alighted at market cross-roads and
then walked to Parel. Her brother, her aunt
Fatu, her sister Hamudi were accompanying
her. Little children, their father and two to
four women were moving behind them. They
had gone to Parel through station road and
her brother had accompanied her till they
reached Parel. His father had not come till
there and he was behind. This witness also
states that after she was compelled to board
the rickshaw, the driver departed the
rickshaw immediately and this happened at
Vandariya village at the location of a fair.
While as per the details of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
complaint, she was made to sit in the
rickshaw near the office of Taluka
Panchayat.
Further, upon considering the details of
cross-examination, there were four persons
in the rickshaw and they had assaulted her
and beaten her with a stick. The rickshaw
was driven to Delsar from there. She was
directly taken to the house from rickshaw.
Men and women of the house were sleeping
in the Courtyard. The door was closed from
the outside. On that night, she was raped
once in the dark. The witness stated that
she did not know as to who committed rape
on her. This witness further stated that she
did not talk to two persons who were
sleeping outside in the morning. Thereafter,
they i.e. five persons walked to Anaas and
reached the railway station within 1.5 to 2
hours. The four persons were walking ahead
and she was about ten feet behind her. The
train arrived half an hour after she reached
platform. There were many people on
platform. Thereafter, they alighted at Anaas.
Two of them were sleeping inside. They
were sleeping on the floor by using a quilt.
The said quilt was inside the house. There
was bed-sheet to cover and both of them
were covered in the same bed-sheet and had
intercourse twice during the night.
Further, this witness stated during her
cross-examination that they reached Sabrala
in rickshaw and there were two to four
passengers in it. She did not know as to
whose house she visited in Sabrala. They
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
were sleeping at night at Sabrala and had
intercourse twice-thrice there during the
night. Police had reached there and she was
present there along with Ramesh. Police
had brought her from there. Police had sent
her to hospital and her clothes were
collected. She was taken to police station
from the hospital. Her father and family
members were present there. They talked to
her and thereafter, she was inquired by the
police. Further, as stated by the witness, the
police came to take her three days after the
incident occurred, but not on the following
day.
However, according to the complainant,
the police handed over the girl at six o'clock
the day after the complaint was filed.
The witness further accepted that she
had stated in her statement the fact that,
"Ramesh did not beat me." During cross-
examination, she also accepted that she did
not know the names of the individuals who
took her away in the rickshaw with Ramesh;
that the police did not present any accused
persons to her after taking her into custody;
and that the policeman recorded whatever
he wished and questioned her father and
brother regarding the facts. The witness
accepts that she neither knew nor currently
knows the names of Kika Badiya and
Chhagan Kaliya. Further, during her stay for
three nights, neither Ramesh tied her hands
and legs and gagged her nor did she beat
Ramesh during that period; that neither she
saw or knew the persons she identified in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
the Court nor the police conducted an
identification parade of the accused. The
witness accepts that in tribal communities,
it is a common practice for a girl to be
abducted and that such matters are typically
resolved later by the elders of the family.
(17) Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the
evidence of the witnesses mentioned above,
the allegation that the accused forcibly
abducted the victim or that Ramesh Soma
committed the rape - forcible sexual
intercourse, cannot be accepted beyond
reasonable doubt. Similarly, the use of the
term "karelu" (i.e., "had sexual intercourse")
to imply that the accused committed rape on
the victim does not appear acceptable.
Further, based on the cross-examination of
the victim Samudiben, it appears that with
her consent, she accompanied the accused
willingly. If she had not gone voluntarily,
how come she remained with the accused
for several days, during which she met
various individuals. Also, the prosecution
witnesses would have promptly gone for
filing a complaint or initiating a search for
her after witnessing the incident. However,
no such facts appear to have taken place.
Further, during cross-examination, the
location of the incident itself was
inconsistent. The victim claimed she was
abducted from the Gol Gadheda fair,
whereas other witnesses stated she was
abducted from near the Taluka Panchayat
Office. Considering the same, it is plausible
that the victim may have left with Ramesh
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
from the fair. Moreover, considering the
evidence of other witnesses, they do not
state that the incident occurred in Parel.
(18) According to the evidence of Khuman
Shakariya, Prosecution Witness No. 5, the
individuals in a rickshaw approached near
the Taluka Panchayat Office and caught hold
and compelled Samudi to board the
rickshaw. Hence, this witness does not state
that the incident occurred in Parel.
Looking to cross-examination of this
witness, he stated that he did not count the
number of persons in the rickshaw, nor did
he ask Samudi the names of any of them
after she returning home. He accepts that
he saw the rickshaw fleeing away and after
it had departed, he ran to call his father,
which took about 15-20 minutes. Upon
meeting his father, they proceeded together
to Sabrala. The witness accepts that he
could not identify who was involved in the
incident and who was not and that he did
not know any of the persons involved.
(18) Thus, upon considering the facts and
circumstances of the case in their entirety,
none of the facts as per the charge-sheet
framed against the accused persons have
been proved against any of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. There are
significant contradictions between the
complaint and the evidence. Further, the
complaint was filed with delay. Taking into
account all the facts and evidences, the
evidence of the prosecution are not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
acceptable beyond reasonable doubt. No
such fact gets proved beyond reasonable
doubt that, at the time of incident, the
accused persons--or any one of them-- took
the victim away or committed rape upon
her. In light of this, no offence has been
proved against the accused persons beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that the accused persons are
entitled to be acquitted and I accordingly
pass the following order.
ORDER
Accused Ramesh Soma Amaliyar,
Bhagwandas @ Bhagu @ Raju Udaram
Aibadasani, Virsingh Bachubhai Kharadiya,
Shakabhai Badiyabhai Dangi, and Kikabhai
Kaliyabhai Charpota (@ Pappu) are hereby
acquitted of the offences charged against
them under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 114
of the Indian Penal Code.
The muddamal rickshaw shall be
released to accused Bhagwandas Udaram
Sindhi. The remaining muddamal shall be
destroyed after the expiry of the appeal
period.
Each accused is directed to furnish a
personal bond of ₹5,000/- and a solvent
surety of the like amount, to ensure their
appearance before the appellate court in the
event an appeal is filed in the matter."
9. We have considered the impugned judgement,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
more particularly paras 15 to 18 of the impugned
judgement, documents produced on record, and
the evidence led by the respective parties. It
emerges that the competent Court in paragraph
nos.15 to 18 has considered the evidence in
detail and the same are finding of facts arrived at
by the competent Court, which upon perusal of
the evidence also require no interference by this
Court.
10. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the aforesaid judgement, the
principles of interference in an order of acquittal
as discussed above and the evidence as
discussed by us, no case is made out to interfere
with the impugned judgement and order passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at
Godhara, in Sessions Case No.148 of 1997 dated
02.07.1998.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other
view is possible, then also, the appellate Court
cannot substitute its own view by reversing the
acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of
the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the
material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly
erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
(Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat
(1996) 9 SCC 225). In the instant case, the
learned APP has not been able to point out to us
as to how the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on
record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or
demonstrably unsustainable.
12. At this stage, it is absolutely apt to refer to the
decision in case of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai
Chavda and another reported in [2024] 4
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
S.C.R. 322. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgement read as under:
"6. It is true that while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, the Appellate Court has to
reappreciate the evidence. After re-
appreciating the evidence, the first question
that needs to be answered by the Appellate
Court is whether the view taken by the Trial
Court was a plausible view that could have
been taken based on evidence on record.
Perusal of the impugned judgment of the
High Court shows that this question has not
been adverted to. Appellate Court can
interfere with the order of acquittal only if it
is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence
that the only possible conclusion was that
the guilt of the accused had been
established beyond a reasonable doubt. The
Appellate Court cannot overturn order of
acquittal only on the ground that another
view is possible. In other words, the
judgment of acquittal must be found to be
perverse. Unless the Appellate Court
records such a finding, no interference can
be made with the order of acquittal. The
High Court has ignored the well-settled
principle that an order of acquittal further
strengthens the presumption of innocence
of the 326 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme
Court Reports accused. After having
perused the judgment, we find that the High
Court has not addressed itself on the main
question.
7. The second error the High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
committed is found in paragraph 23 of the
impugned judgment. The High Court has
gone to the extent of recording a finding
that the appellants have failed to adduce
evidence in their support, failed to examine
the defence witness and failed to establish
falsity of the prosecution's version. This
concept of the burden of proof is entirely
wrong. Unless, under the relevant penal
statute, there is a negative burden put on
the accused or there is a reverse onus
clause, the accused is not required to
discharge any burden. In a case where there
is a statutory presumption, after the
prosecution discharges initial burden, the
burden of rebuttal may shift on the accused.
In the absence of the statutory provisions as
above, in this case, the burden was on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the
High Court's finding on the burden of proof
is completely erroneous. It is contrary to the
law of the land.
8. We have carefully examined the evidence
of the material prosecution witnesses. PW-1
Danabhai stated that after he was informed
in the night around 9 O'clock about the
assault on the deceased by one Vajsurbhai,
he proceeded by his bicycle. He stated that
when he reached Jhanjhmer, he found that
his deceased brother was laid in a tempo of
Ramabhai. He stated about the presence of
Arjanbhai and Jivabhai. He stated that no
one informed him about the incident at that
time. He thereafter described how the
deceased was taken to the hospital of Dr
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
Goti and thereafter to a private hospital in
Bhavnagar. PW-1 deposed that PW-4
Karshanbhai went with him to Bhavnagar,
and in the hospital of Dr Rana, PW-4
informed PW-1 that the appellants had
assaulted the deceased by using a stick. He
stated that though PW-4 informed him that
he was present at the time of the incident,
he did not tell him about the assault on him
by the accused. Thus, PW-1 did not state
that PW-4 was present when he reached the
place where he found that the deceased was
laid in a tempo, and according to his
version, PW-4 came to Bhavnagar. Though
PW-4 stated that PW-1 came on a bicycle
and came to Dhola with them, the version of
PW-1 is that PW-4 joined him at Bhavnagar.
This creates a doubt about the presence of
PW-4 at the time of the incident.
Importantly, one Vajsurbhai, who informed
PW-1 about the assault on the deceased, has
not been examined as a witness. [2024] 4
S.C.R. 327 Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda &
Anr. v. State of Gujarat
9. PW-4 admitted that there is an ongoing
litigation about his family's land between
the appellants and his family. PW-4 claimed
that just before the fatal blow was inflicted
on the deceased, a blow was given to the
witness by pipe around 8 pm on the date of
the incident. However, PW-5 Dr
Jagadishbhai stated that when he examined
PW-4 on 19th September 1996, the history
given by PW-4 was to the effect that he was
assaulted by a pipe on 18th September 1996
at 8.00 pm. The incident is of 17th
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
September 1996. The High Court has
completely brushed aside this statement of
PW-5 by observing that once the police
recorded statements of the Doctor and PW-
4, the statements of PW-4 and the Doctor
before the Court became meaningless. As is
apparent from Section 162 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC),
statements recorded by police under
Section 161 of the CrPC cannot be used for
any purpose except to contradict the
witness. The Trial Court gives several
reasons for discarding the testimony of PW-
4. His prior enmity with the appellants and
his failure to report the incident to the
police, notwithstanding available
opportunities, are also the factors
considered by the Trial Court.
10. Therefore, after having perused the
evidence of the material prosecution
witnesses, in our view, the finding of the
Trial Court that the evidence of PW-4 did
not inspire confidence is a possible finding
which could have been recorded on the
basis of the evidence on record. There was
no reason for the High Court to overturn the
order of acquittal when the findings of the
Trial Court were possible findings that could
be arrived at after reappreciating evidence.
11. Therefore, the appeal must succeed. We
set aside the judgment and order dated 14th
December 2018 of the High Court and set
aside the conviction of the appellants. The
judgment and order dated 5th July 1997 of
the Trial Court is restored. The appeal is,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/42/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
accordingly, allowed. The bail bonds of the
appellant no.2 are cancelled. The appellant
no.1 shall be forthwith set at liberty unless
he is required to be detained in connection
with any other case."
13. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex
Court in the aforesaid judgement and having
considered the judgement referred by the
competent Court, no case is made out to
interfere in the impugned order passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at
Godhara in Sessions Case No.148 of 1997.
14. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. R
& P, if any called for, to be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J)
ANKIT SHAH
