Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Devkaran Surabhai Thakor on 19 November, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/184/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 184 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DEVKARAN SURABHAI THAKOR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. Here is the Appeal by the State against the judgment and order of
acquittal.
2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Deesa, Palanpur, passed in Sessions Case
No.123 of 1999, dated 01.12.2000, acquitting the respondents from the
offence under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 504, 114 and 34 of the IPC
and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, the State has preferred instant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/184/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
3. This Court has heard Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor. Though served, none appears for and on behalf of
the respondent-accused.
4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present appeal are that, the
complainant party and accused belong to one family and residing in the
same area of Village: Radhanpur. There was a grievance on the part of
the accused that, they suffered injustice on the aspect of partition of
land. On 06.09.1998 at about 9:00 p.m., one Lakhubhai raising dispute
of partition of the land, hurled abusive and the complainant party
requested him not to hurled abusive and on that issue, fight arose
between the parties, as a result, Ganpat Viram bite the complainant on
his ear and after hearing the shouting, the accused-respondents came at
the place of incident in support of Ganpat Viram and during the
scuffle, the accused Devukaran gave a stab wound on the head of
Viram Lakhamji and witness Ganesh Viram was assaulted with stick
by accused Bhagwan Thakor and the accused Madhu Thakor gave a
bite on the lips of the complainant. In these background facts, the FIR
being disclosed for the attempt to murder and causing voluntary
injuries to the complainant and witnesses against three persons and at
the end of investigation, they were chargesheeted and put on trial.
5. In the course of trial, the prosecution adduced the following oral
as well as documentary evidence in support of his case:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/184/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
Oral evidence - 14
PW 1 - Exh.8 Ganpatbhai Virmbhai Thakor, Complainant
PW 2 - Exh.11 Ganeshbhai Virmbhai
PW 3 - Exh.12 Kantibhai Mandas
PW 4 - Exh.15 Dr. Kishorkumar Karsanlal Panchal, Medical officer
PW 5 - Exh.23 Ambabhai Dharmabhai Pandya, Panch witness
PW 6 - Exh.25 Popatbhai Hirabhai, Panch witness
PW 7 - Exh.26 Narsangji Nagji, Panch witness
PW 8 - Exh.28 Dr. Mahesh Ratilal Jivrani, Medical officer
PW 9 - Exh.33 Raichandji Kalaji, Panch witness
PW 10 - Exh.34 Virmbhai Lavjibhai
PW 11 - Exh.36 Sardarbhai Lavjibhai Karanbhm, PSI
PW 12 - Exh.41 Rupaji ditaji
PW 13 - Exh.44 Ranjitsinh Hadhisinh Jadeja, PSI
PW 14 - Exh.50 Dr. Sureshbhai Minbhai Nayak
Documentary evidence - 14
Exh.9 Complaint
Exh.10 Panchnama of place of offence
Exh.13 Panchnama of state of body of accused Devkaran
Exh.14 Panchnama of state of body of accused Madhuben
Exh.16 Injury certificate of Virmbhai Lavjibhai
Exh.29 Injury certificate of Kanti Mandas
Exh.30 Injury certificate of Ganesh Virm
Exh.31 Injury certificate of Ganpat Virm
Exh.32 Yadi for treatment of injured by Radhanpur police to
Radhanpur medical officer
Exh.35 Panchnama of state of body of Virmbhai Lavjibhai
Exh.37 Order for investigation
Exh.38 Panchnama of state of body of Bhagwanbhai Surabhai
Exh.17 Yadi by Raghanpur PSO to Medical officer Raghanpur
Exh.24 Article Knife
6. On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded further
statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/184/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
wherein, they claimed their innocence.
7. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating and examining the
oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the accused herein of
all charges as the trial court found major contradictions on the aspect
of injuries and role attributed to the accused herein.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this acquittal
appeal has been preferred by the State.
9. Oral Evidence adduced by the prosecution:
9.1 Ganpat Virambhai (PW.1)
This witness being an injured witness has stated in his chief
examination on the line of the FIR. The witness has stated that,
Lakhu Sura raising the dispute of land, came at his house and he
was provoked himself and gave a bite on his ear and thereafter,
the respondents - accused came in support of Lakhu Sura and
assaulted his father and witnesses.
9.2 Ganesh Viram (PW.2):
The witness in his chief - examination, stated that, the accused
assaulted his father and also gave a stick blow on his hand and
leg because Lakhu Sura by hurling abusive on the issue of land,
raised the dispute and in his support, the accused came at the
place and assaulted them.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/184/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
9.3 Kantibhai Mandas Thakor (PW.3):
This witness has stated that in the said incident, he was assaulted
by Bhagwan Sura and he could not identify the weapon which
allegedly used by Bhagwan Sura.
9.4 Dr. Kishor Panchal (PW.4):
This doctor was on duty with the Radhanpur CHC and he had
given primary treatment to Virambhai and upon examination, he
found "V" shape bond deep wound in the nature of CLW.
According to opinion of the doctor, the injuries could be possible
by blunt substance and also possible by knife.
9.5 Dr.Mahesh Jivrani (PW:8):
This witness was on duty with Radhanpur CHC and had
examined injured Kantimandas, Ganesh Virambhai. The doctor
had found the injury of abrasion on the body of Kantimandas,
whereas so far Ganesh Viram is concerned, the abrasion injury
being found on the body of Ganesh.
9.6 Viram Lavjibhai (PW:10):
The witness has stated that in a family dispute, he sustained
stabbed injuries allegedly inflicted by Devkaran Sura and he
sustained head injuries and had taken treatment at the
Government Hospital. In the cross examination, witness has
admitted that Lakhusura was died on the same occurrence and
the murder case is going on against his sons.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/184/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
9.7 Sardar Lavjibhai Karan (PW:11):
The witness being Investigating Officer of the case has stated in
detail about the investigation undertaken by him. In the cross
examination, he admitted that in the same incident, Lakhusura
being killed and the FIR of murder being registered against the
complainant party. On the aspect of contradiction and
improvement with regard to use of weapon and allegedly used by
the respective accused being taken on record.
10. Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the appellant - State, assailing the judgment and order of
acquittal, has submitted that the findings of acquittal are contrary to
law and evidence on record and the findings recorded are palpably
erroneous and based on the irrelevant material. The injured witness and
eyewitnesses have categorically stated that the accused Devkaran
stabbed Viramlavji by the accused Devkaran and the same has been
corroborated by the medical evidence. Despite of clear evidence,
proving the ingredient of Section 307 of IPC, the Trial Court
disbelieved the charge of attempt to murder and ignored and discarded
the substantial evidence. It is further submitted that the accused gave a
bite injury to the complainant and on this aspect, there is no
contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses and police statement,
the Trial Court ignoring the evidence of injured eyewitness gave a
clean chit to all the accused and acquitted them from all the charges.
11. In such circumstances, as referred above, it has been submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/184/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
that while acquitting the respondent accused, the trial Court has
discarded and ignored the truthful, reliable and acceptable evidence
and as such, no cogent reasons being assigned while discarding such
evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the conclusion of acquittal
recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and
upon erroneous understanding of law. Thus, it is prayed that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the
respondents accused and the judgment and order of acquittal be set
aside and accused may be convicted and sentenced for the offence as
referred above.
12. Before proceeding to address the rival submissions, we would
like to place on record the scope of interference in an appeal against
the acquittal and when the same is justified. In exceptional cases,
where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under
appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the
judgment of acquittal. The Appellate Court should bare in mind the
presence of innocence of the accused and further that, the trial Court's
acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a
routine manner, where the other view of possible should be avoided,
unless there are reasons for interference.
13. In the present case the issue falls for our consideration as to
whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused?
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/184/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
14. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary
evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial
Court. In the case on hand, Viramlavji - PW:10 had sustained and
knife injury on his head. All the witnesses have categorically stated
about the role attributed to the accused Devkaran. The Trial Court did
not have believed the charge of Section 307 and/or Section 324 of IPC,
so far as the injury sustained by PW:10 is concerned. In the facts of the
case, the opinion given by medical witnesses rule out all possibilities
whatsoever injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses
and on that ground, the testimony of eyewitnesses being thrown out on
the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and medical evidence.
We have carefully examined the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
We are in complete agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the
Trial Court as the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the
medical evidence. So far evidence of injured eyewitness Ganpat
Virambhai and other witnesses are concerned, their evidence on the
aspect of injuries and role attributed to the accused in causing the
injury on the particular part of the body having not been believed by
the Trial Court. We have minutely examined the evidence of
eyewitnesses who have received the simple injuries and after careful
examination of it, they had not specifically stated that on which part of
the body, the blows were given by the accused. It is required to be
noted that the one of the relatives of the accused Lakhusura being
killed by the complainant party in the same incident and trial at the
relevant time was pending against the complainant party and witnesses.
Thus, in our opinion, we do not find any perversity in the findings
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/184/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
recorded by the Trial Court and view taken by the Trial Court seems to
be reasonable and plausible view.
15. Thus, therefore, the view of the Trial Court as to the credibility
of the witnesses is possible and plausible view and the Trial Court
while analyzing the evidence has assigned cogent and sound reasons
and therefore, findings of acquittal are reasonable and based on the
evidence on record and we do not find any perversity in the findings of
acquittal so as to interfere. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Trial
Court was justified in acquitting the accused and we are in complete
agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the Court below and hence finds no reason to
interfere with the same.
16. With the observations as aforesaid, the appeal is accordingly
dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the R & P to the Trial
Court. Bail bonds are cancelled, if any, and surety is discharged.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Rakesh
