Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pratapji Shivuji Vaghela on 7 November, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 804 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRATAPJI SHIVUJI VAGHELA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN RAVAL APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MS NISHI PATEL Advocate for HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,14,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 07/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. The State has challenged the judgment of
acquittal dated 17.06.1999 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at
Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.88 of 1996. The
appeal has been filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short C.R.P.C.').
The trial against the accused was conducted under
Sections 143, 147, 148 and Sections 307, 323, 506(2)
and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.')
and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act (for
short 'B.P. Act'). The total accused were 14 in
number. The complaint was registered at Pethapur
Police Station as C.R. No.136 of 1995 and the charge-
sheet was filed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class at Gandhinagar.
2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief can
be noted that the injured Indrajeetsinh Vaghela on
19.09.1995 at about 8.00 p.m. was sitting at the
house of his relative Arjunsinh Vaghela at Village
Pindarda, Biholavas. Indrajeetsinh and Arjunsinh, as
per the prosecution case, were sitting on the cot
which was at the front-yard of the house and were
talking, while the wife of Arjunsinh was in the house
doing the domestic work. It has been noted that at
about 8.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 14 along with 20 to
25 other people had come in a crowd. Out of them,
accused Kanubhai Pratapsinh and Dilipsinh Jasuji were
having knife in their hands, while accused Ranjitsinh
and Jayesh Patel were having rake in their hands,
while rest of them were wielded with sticks. The
prosecution case further notes that when they were at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
Arjunsinh's house, the crowd entered and questioned
injured Indrajeetsinh as to why he had filed the case
against them and that today, they would do away with
him. After saying so, Kanuji and Dilipsinh approached
Indrajeetsinh at the place where he was sitting on
the cot and with the knife gave incessant blows at
the abdomen and the waist and, therefore,
Indrajeetsinh was in a pool of blood.
2.1 Further, it is stated that both the accused as
well as Jayesh Patel dragged Indrajeetsinh from the
courtyard and others started giving him blows with
stick and exhorted that today they will not leave
him. It is also noted that because of the injury on
the abdomen, waist and back, the flesh had come out.
It is also prosecution case that the paternal cousin
of the injured i.e. the complainant - Amitsinh
Vaghela, who was at the outskirt of the village, at
about 8.30 p.m., had seen all the accused with the
weapons in their hands heading towards Arjunsinh's
house.
3. Learned APP Mr. Rohan H.Raval submitted that the
evidence, as was recorded, was crystal clear of the
injury to Indrajeetsinh by Kanuji Pratapji and
Dilipji Jasuji and the evidence was also given of the
others beating him, and the incessant blows which he
received, has resulted into injury that could have
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
turned fatal.
3.1 Learned APP Mr. Raval contended that the
learned Judge has committed error in disbelieving the
evidence of the injured witness Indrajeetsinh and the
eye-witness Amitsinh, both of them have fully
supported the prosecution case. The injured was
immediately admitted to Gandhinagar Civil Hospital
and thereafter was transferred to Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad, where he was operated.
3.2 Learned APP Mr. Raval further contended that
the learned Judge has committed an error in
disbelieving the evidence of the injured on the
ground that the injured witness has not given the
names of accused persons before the Medical Officer
and that the learned Judge has also failed to
consider that the names of the accused persons have
been stated in the police wardhi at Exhibit-88, which
was issued by Gandhinagar Civil Hospital to the
police station and this error, in appreciation of
evidence, has unnecessarily raised doubts regarding
the names of the persons, who had inflicted knife
blows to the injured.
3.3 Learned APP Mr. Raval submitted that the
evidence of both injured Indrajeetsinh and
complainant are corroborative in nature. The evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
of Arjunsinh is of natural witness. The mob had
arrived at his house. While Amitsinh Vaghela had seen
the mob heading towards the house of Arjunsinh.
Though this evidence of all three witnesses are
corroborative in nature, the learned Judge has failed
to appreciate the same.
3.4 Learned APP Mr. Raval submitted that the
learned Judge has not properly appreciated the
evidence of the injured witness only on the ground
that the dying declaration recorded in the hospital
was not in detail, as against the evidence of the
injured witness. Learned APP Mr. Raval stated that
the learned Judge ought to have seen the dying
declaration, which was recorded immediately after
arrival of the injured from operation theater and,
therefore, there was a possibility of not giving full
details and, therefore, it cannot be said that there
are minor omissions and contradictions between the
evidence of the injured witness and the dying
declaration. As per learned APP Mr. Raval, the
omissions and contradictions are minor in nature
which could not be considered as ground for
acquittal.
3.5 Learned APP Mr. Raval further stated that the
learned Judge has committed an error in holding that
the prosecution has failed to explain as to why the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
prosecution witness Arjunsinh has not supported the
case. Learned APP Mr. Raval contended that the
learned Judge was required to appreciate the fact
that it was a personal matter of the witness, whether
to support or not and that itself could not be a
conclusive evidence to acquit the accused.
4. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms. Nishi Patel for
H.L. Patel Advocates for the respondents-accused
submitted that the whole complaint itself is on
concocted facts. The learned Judge has appreciated
the evidence in true sense and though the injured was
examined during the trial, the learned Trial Court
Judge having considered the statement before the
Executive Magistrate of the injured, has disbelieved
the prosecution case.
4.1 Learned Advocate Ms. Patel submitted that the
Executive Magistrate had recorded the statement after
the opinion was taken from the doctor. The deposition
of the Executive Magistrate as PW3 - Ranjitsinh Gohil
clarifies that the doctor had given his opinion of
his consciousness. The injured was in fit state of
mind. Learned Advocate Ms. Patel stated that in case
of injured being alive after recording of the dying
declaration, the weightage has to be given to the
deposition of the injured. Ms. Patel also stated that
it is proved that the Public Officer had conducted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
his duty and in contradiction of the deposition, of
the injured, the dying declaration could be
considered as the statement of the injured, and when
contrary facts are brought on record and when the
injured has not named any of the accused of giving
blows to him and when he feign ignorance, then that
D.D. as statement is required to be believed.
4.2 Learned Advocate Ms. Patel for the accused
further stated that the learned Trial Court Judge has
considered the evidence of the complainant - Amitsinh
as well as other witness. All the evidence given by
Arjunsinh, Indrajeetsinh and Amitsinh are not
corroborative in nature. Amitsinh had altered his
statement and had also misidentified the accused
stating that earlier the name which he had given of
Jayeshbhai, having knife in his hands, was
erroneously stated by him. Learned advocate Ms. Patel
submitted that the very fact clarifies that all of
three had planned to create a false case against the
accused.
4.3 Learned advocate Ms. Patel further stated that
there is a suppression of material facts, where
actually the incident had occurred for some other
reason and Indrajeetsinh sustained the injuries.
Those facts had been brought by way of cross-
examination.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
5. On hearing the arguments of learned advocates of
both the sides, perused the impugned judgment. The
learned Judge has recorded the contradictions, which
has been brought in the deposition of the injured
while comparing the statements with the dying
declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate. In
the dying declaration, injured Indrajeetsinh stated
before the Executive Magistrate that he was sitting
along with Arjunsinh at the front-yard and about 20
to 25 people had come in a mob and they surrounded
and covered him from all the sides. In this crowd of
20 to 25 people, the main person was Pratapji Shivuji
and his three sons Kanu, Kalu and Ranjit as well as
Jayesh Babubhai Patel, Bharatsinh Ramanji Bihola,
Rajendra and Ramanji, both brothers Dilipsinh Jasuji
Bihola, Bhupendraji Jasusinh Bihola, Karansinh
Amarsinh Chatulji, Ishwarji Vaghela, Mahendrasinh
Ishwarsinh Vaghela, all these people were there and,
over and above them, there were other few who were
also involved in beating the injured, but he could
not named them.
5.1 As recorded in the dying declaration, the
injured stated that among those persons whom he had
named, some of them, had given him 7 to 8 blows on
his stomach, on the left hand as well as the back and
blow with the stick and baton. He stated that all of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
them in the crowd were beating him and, therefore, he
fell-down. He does not remember anything thereafter.
In further questions that were recorded, he answered
that in the month of January, he had a verbal spat
with the accused in connection with the tractor and
that he had given a police complaint. Further when
asked about the weapons in the hands of the accused,
the injured stated that he had not seen as to which
of the weapons were in the hands of which of the
accused, however, he stated that Kanuji Pratapji had
a knife in his hand, Ranjit was having a rake and
Jayesh was also having a rake in his hand.
6. The learned Judge after having appreciated the
evidence on record has found the contradictory
statement of the injured, while before the Executive
Magistrate, he could not name the accused who had
given him the knife blows and improvising his own
case, he has named the accused during the trial where
the defense could also bring the enmity which was
there with the injured.
7. The prosecution case is that the injured was
sitting along with Arjunsinh in the front-yard of
house of Arjunsinh. While Arjunsinh had given the
name of third person having inflicted blows to the
injured; he had named Jayesh Patel. Arjunsinh had
identified Jayeshbhai Patel and Sureshbhai Patel in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
the crowd and according to him, Jayesh was having a
knife while Suresh was having a stick and according
to him, Jayesh had given knife blows to Indrajeetsinh
and those knife blows were at about eight in numbers
in the abdomen and four at the back. The whole
incident creates doubt since Arjunsinh does not
depose that he had intervened to save Indrajeetsinh.
Arjunsinh had not sustained any injuries. Amitsinh
has been brought on the ground that he had seen the
accused heading towards the house of Arjunsinh,
however, both the witnesses have denied of
intervening in the incident.
7.1 The glaring fact is that no identification
parade has been conducted and the injured as well as
the witnesses were not called forward to identify the
accused, who had actually inflicted the blows as per
the prosecution case. As per the injured
Indrajeetsinh, there were about 20 to 25 people in
the mob, while he had identified only 14 people. How
he could remember the names of the accused, who had
been subjected to the trial does not become clear.
The learned Judge has considered that the real fact
has been suppressed. The learned Judge was not ready
to believe about the connection with the incident
about the tractor and the complaint, which had been
given eight months prior for any instigation and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
incitement of 25 to 30 people to approach the
injured. It has been noted that the injured
Indrajeetsinh had teased the sister of accused
Jayeshbhai and, therefore, 25 to 30 people had
rebuked him and the quarrel is stated to have taken
place at the house of Jayeshbhai and accordingly, the
father of Jayeshbhai had given a complaint on that
very day which was registered as II-C.R. No.95/1995
at Pethapur Police Station. The copy of the charge-
sheet was produced at Exhibit-107, wherein the
accused shown were Bharatsinh Arjunsinh,
Indrajeetsinh Modsinh and Dhamirji Chelaji. It
appears that whole of the incident has been shifted
to some other place and the interested witnesses were
shown to be the eye-witness. Amitsinh has been shown
as chance witness to the incident. The eye-witness,
as alleged were found to be interested person.
8. The learned Trial Court Judge has very rightly
disbelieved the prosecution case and by relying upon
the dying declaration, considering it as statement of
the injured, has rightly acquitted the accused. The
injured could not identify the person, who had
inflicted blows to him, while the defense could
bring out the case by way of the charge-sheet and the
complaint filed against the injured that it was a
different story of the injured teasing the sister of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
Jayeshbhai.
9. In the case of Bhagwan Sahai and Anr. v. State
of Rajasthan reported in (2016) 13 SCC 171, it was
held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
8. "...Once the Court came to a finding that
the prosecution has suppressed the genesis
and origin of the occurrence and also failed
to explain the injuries on the person of the
accused including death of father of the
appellants, the only possible and probable
course left open was to grant benefit of
doubt to the appellants..."
10. The judgment of Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325,
would be relevant to be mentioned since the judgment
lays down the general principles for the
consideration of the acquittal appeals. The Supreme
Court has held thus:
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts
no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
law.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons", "good
and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to come
to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in
mind that in case of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be innocent
unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court.
11. In view of the observations made herein above
and the principle of law laid down in the referred
judgments, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the findings observed by the learned Trial Court
Judge. The genesis of the case is suppressed. The
existence of witnesses does not inspire confidence
nor is supporting the prosecution case. In the
result, the appeal stands dismissed. Record and
Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
PARMAR KRISH
