Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mansingbhai Navabhai Govadiya on 6 May, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje, Samir J. Dave
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 324 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANSINGBHAI NAVABHAI GOVADIYA
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. MONALI BHATT, APP, for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 06/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. The present appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order
of acquittal dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Surat in Sessions Case No.123 of 2011. By the impugned judgment
and order, the Sessions Court acquitted the respondent-accused for
offense under Section 302 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
On 18.03.2011 at around 11 p.m., the accused got instigated upon
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
seeing the deceased harassing Savita, who is the daughter of Vinodbhai
and hit on the head of the deceased using a stone and koita (sickle)
thereby resulting in his death. Further, in order to hide the body of the
deceased, he threw the body in a well thereby committing the alleged
offence.
3. This court by order dated 26.8.13 has admitted the appeal , the paper
book is available for the perusal, the matter has been taken up with the
assistance of the learned APP considering the fact that the matter is of
the year 2013.
4. Learned APP has submitted that the order of acquittal passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.123 of 2011 is
contrary to law and evidence on record of the case.
4.1 Learned APP has submitted that the complainant and other witnesses
have categorically stated before the Court regarding the commission of
offense and there is clear evidence to the effect that the accused was
harassing the daughter of the deceased which resulted in commission of
murder of the deceased. However, the Sessions Judge has disbelieved
the same as the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not corroborating
with the evidence of the complainant.
4.2 Learned APP has submitted that there is no reason to doubt the
evidence of the complainant as there is no reason to falsely involve the
accused. However, the Sessions Judge has disbelieved this witness.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
4.3 Learned APP submitted that although there are omissions and
contradictions in the contents of FIR and in the evidence before the
Court, it is not to the extent that it would prove fatal to the case of the
prosecution.
4.4 Learned APP submitted that PW No.7-Dr. Alpanaben Sureshchandra
Jain, Exh.20 is the deposition of the medical officer who has performed
the postmortem of the deceased and she has stated that cause of death
is due to injuries sustained by the deceased on his head with hard
substance. However, the Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the
evidence of this witness.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned APP and having perused
documents in record, it appears that to prove the case against the
respondent-accused, the prosecution has examined the following
witnesses:-
Sr. No. Name of Witness PW No. Exh. No.
Jain
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
5.1 The prosecution has brought on record the following documentary
evidence:-
Sr. No. Particulars Exh. No.
6. The prosecution has examined PW No.1-Meenaben Vinodbhai vide
Exh.11, who is the complainant and wife of the deceased. The
complainant has deposed that the accused is the cousin of the deceased
and that Sabitaben is the daughter of the accused. Further, it is deposed
that all of them were engaged in labor work and on the date of the said
incident, the deceased went to collect wages from the employer-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
Latifbhai. Thereafter, the accused asked his wife and the complainant to
go home, give the money and come back. Hence, both of them left to go
home to their respective villages and the deceased, accused and
daughter of the accused stayed back at the farm. On the next day, she
reached the farm at around 1 p.m. and her husband could not be found
hence, he asked the daughter of the accused regarding his whereabouts.
Upon which she replied that the the accused was verbally abusing the
deceased and that the deceased slept off. Additionally, she replied that
the accused gave a blow on the head of the deceased with something,
killed him and threw him in Tapi river. Upon which, she went to the police
station along with Latifbhai after five days and filed a complaint. During
the duration of five days, she had been searching for the body of the
deceased which was found from the well in the field of Latifbhai. The
said delay of five days in lodging the complaint particularly when the
daughter of the deceased has informed her that the accused killed the
deceased raises a doubt on the case of the prosecution and a possibility
of false implication of the accused. Further, the said justification raised
that they were searching for the body of the deceased during the said
period does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
6.1 The complainant has deposed in her cross examination that she
searched at her place of residence before asking the daughter of the
accused. However, she contradicts her own statement later on and
stated that she asked the daughter of the deceased before searching in
her place of residence. Such contradictions raise a doubt on the version
of the prosecution.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
6.2 Also, she has deposed that they were on good terms with the accused
and that there was no reason as such to kill the deceased. Further, she
has deposed that she is unaware of the reason why her husband was
killed. Hence, it appears that they were on cordial terms and no such
motive can be attributed to the commission of the said offense. Although
motive is not an essential ingredient to prove the offense, it becomes
significant especially in the cases where evidences are circumstantial.
6.3 Further, in the cross examination of the complainant she has deposed
that the daughter of the accused (Sabita) is mentally unsound and
insane. Hence, it is coming out from the deposition of this witness itself
that the daughter of the accused was unsound and therefore, the
disclosure made by the daughter of the accused cannot be relied upon.
Further, it appears that no medical examination was conducted by the
prosecution in order to prove that the daughter of the accused was not
medically unsound. In this regard, it becomes important to look at the
deposition of the daughter of the accused particularly when the
complainant is not an eye witness to the said incident and her allegation
is based on the statement made by the daughter of the accused.
7. The prosecution has examined PW No.2-Sabitaben Mansing vide
Exh.13, who is the daughter of the accused. As the said witness is aged
14 years, she was administered oath after putting forth preliminary
questions and ensuring that the witness understands the seriousness of
it. The said witness has deposed in her examination in chief that the
deceased is her uncle and that he has passed away. Thereafter, upon
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
further questioning regarding who had killed the deceased, she
answered that her father (accused) had killed him and that he killed him
because the deceased was taking her away. However, in her cross
examination, when the witness was asked regarding what was the
deceased hit with, she has deposed that the deceased has not been hit.
Also, upon asking the witness regarding the time the incident took place,
she has refrained from answering. Further, she admits that the deceased
used to consume alcohol and that she has not seen the deceased on the
date of the incident or thereafter and that she is unaware about what
happened to the deceased.
7.1 Upon perusing the deposition of the said witness, it appears that there
are material contradictions which goes to the root of the case and does
not support the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the witness has
refrained from answering certain questions. She has also deposed that
she is unaware of what happened to the deceased and that she had not
seen the deceased on the date of the incident. This clearly contradicts
the deposition of the complainant which was hearsay and wherein the
complainant has stated that the daughter of the accused told her that
"the accused gave a blow on the head of the deceased with something,
killed him and threw him in Tapi river". Hence, the deposition of this
witness raises a doubt on the case of the prosecution and cannot be
relied upon. Upon considering the age of this witness at the relevant time
and her deposition as PW No.2-Sabitaben Mansing vide Exh.13 the
court is of the view that she cannot be treated as a sterling quality
witness on whose deposition alone a conviction can be based.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
8. The prosecution has examined PW No.9-Abdul Latif Gulambhai Sindha
vide Exh.28. This witness has deposed that he was the tenant (farmer) at
the field where both the accused and the deceased worked as laborers
and that after he was informed by the complainant, he joined to find the
deceased. He has stated that they were on good terms and hence, it is
coming out that there was no motive as such to commit the said offense.
Further, he has stated that the body was recovered from a well but he is
unaware about how the deceased died. This witness has been declared
hostile and even in the cross examination, this witness has deposed
nothing so as to support the case of the prosecution.
9. The prosecution has examined PW No.7-Dr. Alpanaben Sureshchandra
Jain vide Exh.20 who is the medical officer who conducted the
postmortem of the deceased. She has deposed that the cause of death
is hemorrhage shock due to head injury and the death was unnatural.
Such an injury is possible using a heavy and sharp weapon such as the
mudammal weapon. Further, it is deposed that due to physical
decomposition, the physical structure of the body of the deceased cannot
be determined and that the skin was prone to rupture due to such
decomposition. The liver and other internal organs were protruding out of
the body and the stomach also had decomposed. Hence, although the
medical evidence shows that the death is unnatural, there should be
other corroborating evidence to connect the accused to the said offense.
10. The prosecution has examined PW No.8-Meenaben Rajnikant Dave vide
Exh.24 who is the F.S.L. officer. He has deposed that he conducted the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
examination of samples received and has submitted the FSL Report vide
Exh.26 and FSL Serological Report vide Exh.27. He has deposed that
Sample B1 was the blood sample of the deceased which was
ascertained as 'B' blood group, Sample A was the shirt which had
bloodstains of blood group 'B' on it, Sample A1-pants and A2-
undergarment had bloodstains of blood group 'B' on it. However, Sample
D-sickle (koita) had bloodstain on it which was unascertained which
significantly weakens the case of the prosecution.
11. Further, the prosecution has examined PW No.3-Dega @ Amrutbhai vide
Exh.14 and PW No.4-Sombhai Modibhai vide Exh.16 who are panchas
of the discovery panchnama. However, it appears that the witnesses
have denied that recovery of any weapon took place in their presence
and that the witnesses have been declared hostile. Hence, this weakens
the case of the prosecution and the discovery panchnama cannot be
relied upon to link the accused to the said offense.
12. The prosecution has examined PW No.5-Kasimkhan Umarkhan Pathan
vide Exh.17 and PW No.6-Ibrahim Haji Daud Mobin vide Exh.19 who are
panchas of the panchnama of place. However, both these panchas have
denied that collection of any samples took place in their presence and
they have been declared hostile.
13. Upon perusing the oral and documentary evidences, it appears that the
prosecution is unable to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It appears that there are contradictions in the
deposition of the complainant who is a hearsay witness and has deposed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
that the daughter of the accused is of unsound mind. Further, it appears
that the key witness who is the daughter of the accused has deposed
that she is unaware about what happened to the deceased and that she
was not present on the date of the incident. The other prosecution
witnesses including panchas have not supported the case of the
prosecution and have been declared hostile. It appears that it is a case
of circumstantial evidence and no motive as such is attributed to the
accused to commit the said offense and hence, the accused appears to
have been rightly acquitted.
14. The Court may also draw strength from the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2022) 3
SCC 471, wherein the Apex Court has examined the case law with
regard to the power of the High Court to overturn the decision of the
Sessions Court where an another view is possible. Examining the case
including that of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 415, the Apex Court has culled out the general principles
regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the
appeal against the order of acquittal. The Apex Court has held that the
appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the
appellate court has to keep in mind that in case of an acquittal, there is a
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence, and thereafter, upon securing of acquittal, the
presumption is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened, and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
therefore, whenever there are two reasonable possible on the basis of
evidence on record, ordinarily, the Apex Court would not disturb the
findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
15. The Court has also perused the judgment and order of the Sessions
Court and finds that just and cogent reasoning are assigned by the
Sessions Court while acquitting the respondent-accused.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.09.2012
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case
No.123 of 2011. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Bail and bonds of
the accused, if any, stand discharged. R & P be sent back to the
concerned trial Court.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
SIDDHARTH
