Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Lalubhai Alias Lalo Laxmanbhairabari on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 161 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LALUBHAI ALIAS LALO LAXMANBHAIRABARI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT)
1. The present Appeal has been filed by the State
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
challenging the judgment and order dated 06.10.2000
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.24,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court")
in Session Case No.371 of 1998, whereby the learned trial
Court acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled
against him under sections 302 and 294(b) of Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. The short facts of the prosecution case read as
under:-
2.1 As per the case of the prosecution, Dineshbhai
Ravjibhai Bariya (hereinafter referred to as "the victim")
sustained fatal injuries due to knife blow inflicted upon him
by accused Lalubhai alias Lalo Laxmanbhai Rabari on
12.4.1998 at about 8.30 p.m.. On receiving such injuries,
the victim was brought to L.G.Hospital in the midnight
around 11.30 pm but found conscious. After performing
treatment upon the victim, he took discharge against the
medical advice on 27.4.1998 from the hospital. Further, due
to complication arose due to injuries sustained, again he
was hospitalized on 02.5.1998, but then after also, he went
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
away from the hospital and later on reported died on
09.5.1998. His dead body was initially buried but when the
police came to be informed about such death, police
appears to have exhumed the dead body, thereafter on
15.5.1998 postmortem (P.M.) performed on victim's dead
body.
2.2 It is also required to be observed here that when
the victim brought in L.G.Hospital for the first time, the
police official i.e. Kishorsinh Ramsinh Parmar, Head
Constable took history of his sustaining injuries which were
written down in his Vardhi sent to Amraiwadi Police Station.
As per Vardhi, it was noted down that victim himself
informed that due to scuffle taken place between the victim
and the accused in relation to some money matter at his
residence at 11:00 p.m. on 12.04.1998, the accused
inflicted blow of knife on his abdomen part.
2.3 Whereas the victim himself registered FIR on the
next day i.e. 13.4.1998, wherein reported the incident of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
having sustained injuries on 12.4.1998 taken place at
around at 8.30 p.m. in the presence of his friend Raju
Marwadi near Pan Galla.
3. Thus, statement of victim as recorded in Vardhi
and FIR differs so far as time & place of incident of crime.
Nonetheless, after recording the statements of various
witnesses and on completion of investigation, the accused
charge sheeted and ultimately, the case was committed to
the Trial Court for trial to be conducted for the offences of
sections 302 and 294(b) of IPC.
3.1 To bring home the charge levelled against the
accused, the prosecution led the following oral as well as
documentary evidences which reads as under.
ORAL EVIDENCES :
PW 1 Ravjibhai Chhanabhai, father of the deceased, at Exh.12
PW 2 Govindbhai Bhikhabhai Thakor, pancha, at Exh.13
PW 3 Kishorsinh Ramsinh Parmar, Head Constable, Exh.15
PW 4 Chimanlal Ramabhai Parmar, PSI at Exh.17
PW 5 Rajendrasinh alia Raju Achalsinh Marwadi (Rajput),
Rickshaw driver at Exh.20
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
PW 6 Dr. Mrs.Dharmilaben Gunvantbhai Shah, RMO, LG Hospital
Exh.21
PW 7 Lakhabhai Parbatbhai Gaadhe, PSI (Reader Police Inspector,
Exh.23)
PW 8 Dr.Laljibhai Khimjibhai Rathod, Exh.25 (P.M.Doctor)
PW 9 Ahmedbhai Bapubhai Qureshi, PI, Exh.26
PW 6 (Recall) Dr.Dharmilaben G.Shah, RMO, LG Hospital, Exh.33
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES :
1 FIR filed by deceased Dinesh Exh.24
2 Copy of Vardhi received from LG Hospital, Exh.18.
3 Panchnama of place of offence Exh.8
4 Panchnama of discovery of weapon, Exh.27
5 Medical certificate of deceased Dinesh Exh.35
6 P.M. Note of the deceased, Exh.10
7 Various medical case papers of LG Hospital Exh.37 and
8 Inquest Panchnama, Exh.9
3.2 After appreciating the evidence led by the
prosecution and hearing learned advocates for the
respective parties, learned trial Court found that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against
the respondent accused having found several irregularities
and short-comings in the evidence of the prosecution,
ultimately, acquitted the respondent accused by giving him
benefit of doubt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the
prosecution has filed the present Criminal Appeal.
5. We have heard learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, Ms. Shruti Pathak for the appellant State at
length who has taken us through various oral evidence as
well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We
have independently examined and appreciated evidence of
witnesses.
Submissions of the appellant :
6. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak would submit
that learned Trial Court has committed serious error in law
when acquitted the respondent accused from the charge of
murder i.e. section 302 of IPC. It is submitted that the
victim himself gave his statement to the police as well as
registered the FIR against the respondent accused for
commission of crime. So, in these circumstances, there was
no reason to acquit the respondent accused from such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
serious charge.
6.1 Learned APP would submit that the prosecution
examined police official who took Vardhi and also
investigated crime in question and nothing adverse is
proved by the respondent accused during their cross
examination. It is submitted that as per the case papers and
postmortem report (P.M. report), it is self-sufficient that
cause of death has direct nexus with the knife blow inflicted
by the respondent accused. Thus, the respondent accused
could not have been acquitted from the charges.
6.2 Learned APP would further submit that as per the
settled legal position of law when the victim who sustained
serious injuries, reported such commission of crime during
his life time in the form of FIR or otherwise, the same is
required to be considered as his dying declaration. It is
submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved that
due to infection arising out of injuries sustained by the
victim, he died thereby, FIR / Vardhi registered by victim
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
during his conscious state of mind, ought to have been
considered as his dying declaration. Having not considered
such aspect, learned trial Court has committed serious
error in law.
6.3 Learned APP would further submit that merely
because an eye witness to the incident i.e. Rajendrasinh
Achalsinh Marwadi (PW 5) has not supported the case of the
prosecution, other evidences which were available on record
could not have been ignored by learned trial Court. It is
submitted that incident and injuries whereby the victim
sustained injuries of knife blow by the respondent accused
cannot be disputed, inasmuch as such, fact came from the
mouth of the victim himself before he died.
6.4 Making the above submissions, learned APP
would humbly request this Court to allow the appeal.
7. Though served, none appears for the respondent
accused. However, after scanning the entire evidence and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
going through the impugned judgment and order passed by
learned trial Court, the view which we are going to take in
this appeal, we do not feel so to hear the respondent
accused.
8. Before adverting to the issue germane in the
appeal, scope and interference in the appeal by this Court
that too in acquittal appeal filed by the State under section
378 of CrPC needs to be taken note of. In a case of Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149, wherein the
Honourable Apex Court taking note of its previous
decisions, held thus:
"39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of
Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated
the legal position covering the field after considering
various earlier judgments and held as below: -
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this
Court culled out the following general principles
regarding the powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa
case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4
SCC 415 ]
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
" 42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
powers of the appellate court while dealing with
an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts
no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate
court 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
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
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the Trial Court."
40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v.
State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court
summarized the principles governing the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal
against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows:
"8.1.The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the
oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after re- appreciating the
evidence, is required to consider whether the view
taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which
could have been taken on the basis of the
evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view was
also possible; and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the
order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that
the only conclusion which can be recorded on the
basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt
of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable
doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope
of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in
favour of the accused has to be exercised within the
four corners of the following principles:-
41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence
on record; is based on a consider material
41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and
only the
view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible
from the evidence available on record.
42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent
findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court."
9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio, now, even
after re-appreciation of entire sets of evidence, and so also
having gone through the impugned judgment, for following
shortcoming and reasons, the accused could not be held
guilty for commission of crime under Section 302 of I.P.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
As such, we could not find any infirmity either in findings so
recorded by Trial Court and its ultimate conclusion by
which accused has been acquitted for the charge of murder
i.e. Section 302 of I.P.C. The aforestated conclusion is
supported by the following reasons:-
9.1 As per the FIR (Exh.24) registered by the victim
himself on 13.4.1998, it suggests that incident of inflicting
knife blow by the respondent-accused taken place near pan
shop at around 8.30 p.m. on 12.04.1998, that too in the
presence of his friend Rajendrasinh Achalsinh Marwadi (PW
5) and other persons who tried to save victim.
9.2 Whereas, as per Vardhi recorded by Kishorsinh
Ramsinh Parmar, Head Constable (PW 3) at L.G.Hospital at
early morning hours @ 00:35 am on 13.04.1998, would
suggest that such incident of receiving injuries by the victim
at his residence taken place at 11.00 pm on 12.4.1998.
After injuries, he brought to L.G. Hospital by his
grandmother Soniben, who never examined by prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
as witness.
9.3 As per Vardhi and FIR, victim found conscious.
Even the medical case papers of L.G. hospital also suggest
and confirm said fact. Nonetheless, despite both facts
reported by victim in near time, still there is noticeable
difference in time and place of commission of crime.
Though, there is an anomaly in timing and place of crime,
prosecution unable to resolve it during trial. This one fact
creates serious doubt about genuineness of story put
forward by victim himself.
9.4 The case papers of the victim made available on
record of the case would suggest that post operation, only
antibiotics given to him, not to develop any infection in
body. Before he fully cured, he took discharge against
medical advice on 27.4.1998. It is required to be noted here
that when he took discharge against the medical advise
(DAMA), there was no infection found in his body as
admitted by witness PW 6 - Dr.Smt Dharmila Gunvant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Shah.
9.5 As per case of PW-1, father of victim that when
victim again developed some complications, readmitted in
L.G.Hospital around on 02.5.1998 and later on reported
died on 9.5.1998, but there is no case papers of 2.5.1998 or
otherwise made available on record by prosecution. Even
doctor of said hospital (PW-6) during her evidence not able
to lay her hand to any such subsequent treatment taken by
victim on 02.05.1998.
9.6 It is clearly stated by the father of the victim
examined as PW 1 - Ravjibhai that the victim went away
from hospital after 2.5.1998 and when he saw his son
facing so many difficulties and complained about pain
decided to readmit him in the hospital, but before he took
any further decision, the victim died on 9.5.1998. The
postmortem report appears to have been performed on
15.5.1998 after exhumed the dead body of victim otherwise
buried on 9.5.1998 without informing police by his father,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
who later on himself informed police about factum of death.
The above act of relative of victim creates lots of suspicion in
prudent mind.
9.7 Only one eye witness Rajendrasinh Achalsinh
Marwadi (PW 5) examined by the prosecution who turned
hostile having not supported the case of the prosecution.
Though incident took place in public place as per the FIR
and statement of more persons recorded by police, no other
eye witness except PW-5 examined despite victim gave their
reference in his complaint - FIR.
9.8 No blood stain of victim either collected and/or
found at pan shop or at the residence of the victim as
nothing came on record to substantiate the same. Likewise,
knife which alleged to have been recovered from the custody
of the respondent accused not sent to FSL nor his
possession proved as panch witness turned hostile.
9.9 Dr. Laljibhai Khimjibhai Rathod (PW 8) who
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
performed postmortem was examined by the prosecution,
but this Court, after reading his cross examination, several
anomalies were found as regards preparation of postmortem
report, inasmuch as, several columns were either casually
field in or kept blank while preparing P.M. report. Even
three injuries found on the dead body as per the inquest
panchnama, whereas as per the P.M. report, it was five in
number. Nonetheless, PW-8 unable to give plausible
explanation for such anomalies in number of injuries found
on the dead body. No probable time of death recorded in
said report. PW-8 admitted in his cross-examination that he
did not inquire about previous history of victim either from
police or victim's relative and further admitted that if
previous history of patient not known to him, he could not
give final opinion of cause of death. Further admitted that
there might be another reason of death of victim than
shown in P.M. report as he shown only probable cause of
death. It needs to take note of serious lapse on part of PW-8,
when he admitted that whenever dead body exhumed while
performing postmortem, one needs to collect Viscera sample
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
for further examination. But, as admitted by PW-8, he did
neither collect nor send Viscera for examination from dead
body of victim. There are other anomalies also noticed in his
evidence but not required to be discussed in detail as we are
in agreement with the view taken by the learned Trial Court,
whereby held that the manner in which postmortem is
prepared which creates reasonable doubt about its
genuineness and might not have been prepared by PW-8.
9.10 Lastly, it is also coming forth in cross-
examination of Dr.Laljibhai Khimjibhai Rathod (PW-8) that
injuries sustained by the victim were not on vital part of
body and not even fatal to cause death. As observed herein
above, when victim himself took DAMA and went out of
hospital on his own, later on found dead due to infection as
the case may be, considering entire set of evidence on
record, according to our view as well, the prosecution failed
to prove that there was proximity between injuries
sustained and death. Thus, in view of aforesaid and on re-
appreciation of evidence, the statement recorded by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
police in the form of FIR or Vardhi of the victim, cannot be
treated as his dying declaration.
10. All these above factors would clearly suggest that
there is weakness and short-comings in the case of the
prosecution and the evidence led by the prosecution not
inspired any confidence at least to us, whereby we can
upturn decision of learned Trial Court acquitting the
respondent accused by giving him benefit of doubt.
11. Thus, in view of the above referred flaws in the
evidence of prosecution and after going through the reasons
assigned by learned trial Court, we are in complete
agreement with the reasons and the view taken by learned
trial Court whereby acquitted the respondent - accused.
12. Considering these set of evidences on record and
in light of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as referred hereinabove, we are of the opinion that no error
has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/161/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Judge, Court No.24, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case
No.371 of 1998 (Trial Court) while acquitting the respondent
- accused.
13. This appeal found meritless, accordingly
DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order
of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any,
shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, be sent back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
H.M. PATHAN
