Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajendra @ Raju Jivrajbhai Chauhan on 20 November, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 760 of 2003
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
RAJENDRA @ RAJU JIVRAJBHAI CHAUHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 16.08.2002 passed by the learned Joint District Judge and
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar in Sessions Case
No.9/2000, whereby the respondent-accused came to be acquitted for the
offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant - State has
preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as
under:
2.1. The complainant, being the sister of the deceased, is residing with
her husband at Kadiyavad, Boydi Fali, Jamnagar, while the deceased was
residing with his parents and elder brother in the street of Bapu Maharaj
situated behind Custom House at Jamnagar Grain Market. The further
prosecution case is that on 15.12.1999 at about 12:15 hours, when the
complainant was passing through Custom House after purchasing
vegetables from New Bakala Market, she noticed a commotion near it.
She saw a tussle between the deceased and the respondent-accused. After
escaping from the grip of the respondent-accused, the deceased started
running, but the respondent-accused followed him, caught hold of him,
and after taking out a weapon like a knife, started inflicting continuous
blows on the deceased. On hearing shouts, people from the surrounding
locality gathered there. On sustaining serious injuries, the deceased fell
down and died on the spot, while the respondent-accused fled from the
place of offence. On these facts, the complaint was lodged with the
police.
2.2. The FIR came to be registered at Jamnagar City 'B' Division Police
Station under Sections 302 and 135 of the Bombay Police Act bearing
C.R. No.I-624/1999. The accused was arrested on 15.12.1999 and
remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed
on 06.01.2000 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamnagar,
registered as Criminal Case No.90/2000.
2.3. As the Judicial Magistrate First Class lacked jurisdiction to try the
offence under Section 302 IPC, the case was committed to the Sessions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Court, Jamnagar vide order dated 12.01.2000 and registered as Sessions
Case No.9/2000 for trial. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence,
the trial court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the
evidence to the respondent-accused for his explanation under Section 313
of the Code. In his further statement, the respondent-accused denied all
the incriminating circumstances as false and stated that he is innocent and
has been falsely implicated. After examining the oral and documentary
evidence and the submissions from both sides, the learned trial court
recorded a finding in favour of the respondent-accused and acquitted him
of all charges.
3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before
the learned Sessions Court. During the course of the trial, the prosecution
examined a total of 17 witnesses. The details of the oral and documentary
evidence are as under:
~:: Oral Evidence ::~
Sr. Particular Exh.
No.
1. Dr. Kumar Dhananjaysingh - Medical Officer PW-1 20
2. Dr. Chetan Baharilal Jani - Medical Officer PW-2 25
3. Lilavantibai Hasmunkhbhai Solanki - Complainant 29
PW-3
4. Prabhaben Prabhudas Devjibhai - Eyewitness PW-4 30
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
9. Danabai Nathabhai Boriya - Eyewitness PW-9 35
10. Chamanlal Nankochand Chheepa - Eyewitness PW-10 36
11. Paresh Govindlal Khetani - Eyewitness PW-11 37
12. Harilal Chhaganlal - Father of Deceased PW-12 39
13. Vasnt Dhanjibhai Mange - Panch Witness PW-13 40
17. Bhikubha Bakulbha Jadeja - Investigating Officer 55
PW-17
~:: Documentary Evidence ::~
Sr. Particular Exh.
No.
2. Yadi by PSI to PSO for registration of offence 43
7. Yadi by PSI to Civil Hospital for postmortem 26
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
10. Panchnama of blood-stained clothes, blood sample, 48
PM notes
11. Yadi by PSI to Civil Hospital for treatment of accused 21
and blood sample
14. Certificate of collection of blood sample of accused 23
15. Yadi by PSI to Circle Inspector for site map 49
17. Letter from Circle Inspector regarding map 51
20. Yadi by PSI to FSL Junagadh for examination of 53
muddamal
23. Forwarding letter of FSL Junagadh with opinion 60
25. Forwarding letter of FSL Junagadh, Biology 62
Department with opinion
26. FSL Junagadh, Physical Sciences Department opinion 64
27. Forwarding letter of FSL Junagadh Serological 63
Department
28. FSL Junagadh Serological Department opinion 65
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
4. The learned APP appearing for the appellant - State submitted that
the impugned judgment requires interference, primarily relying upon the
deposition of the complainant examined as PW-3 at Exh.29. Her
testimony, according to the prosecution, establishes the tussle on
15.12.1999 at about 12:15 hours near Custom House, Grain Market,
Jamnagar, the respondent-accused inflicting blows with a knife-like
weapon on the deceased, leading to his instantaneous death. It is not in
dispute that the deceased suffered multiple injuries, as corroborated by
the postmortem report (Exh.28) showing 13 injuries, including fatal chop
wounds on the neck causing excessive bleeding. Hence, it was contended
that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused.
4.1. The learned APP further submitted that the evidence of the
investigating officer (PW-17 at Exh.55) and medical witnesses (PW-1 at
Exh.20 and PW-2 at Exh.25) corroborates the prosecution case,
particularly the recovery of blood-stained clothes and weapon (muddamal
Article 4), with FSL reports (Exhs.61, 65) confirming human blood of the
deceased's group on the articles. Therefore, the acquittal warrants
interference and conviction of the respondent-accused.
5. Having heard the learned APP for the appellant-State and perused
the depositions of the witnesses, documentary evidence, and the judgment
of the Sessions Court, it is manifest that the prosecution case rests solely
on the testimony of the complainant (PW-3 at Exh.29), the sister of the
deceased, while all other purported eyewitnesses have turned hostile and
afforded no corroboration whatsoever. Consequently, the judicial scrutiny
must necessarily be confined to the deposition of this solitary witness and
whether it is of such sterling quality as to inspire unwavering confidence
and bring home the charges against the respondent-accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
6. PW-3, Lilavantibai Hasmunkhbhai Solanki (Exh.29), the
complainant and sister of the deceased, deposed that on 15.12.1999 at
around 12:15 hours she was returning home after purchasing vegetables
when she heard a commotion near Custom House, Grain Market,
Jamnagar, rushed there, and saw the respondent-accused chasing and
stabbing her brother with a knife-like weapon on the neck, left shoulder,
and right palm during a scuffle arising from a money dispute. She raised
an alarm but immediately fainted and remained unconscious for several
hours. However, in cross-examination, she admitted ignorance about the
lodging of the FIR (Exh.56), its contents, place, date, and time of
recording, stating only that her father had it written and she later
"corrected" it. She denied the existence of any vegetable market near
Gadh-ni-Rang despite admitting a five-minute walk from her house to
Chorawad market, and conceded that a crowd of 100-200 persons
gathered instantly, obscuring her view. She described only three injuries
whereas the postmortem disclosed thirteen. When shown muddamal
Article-4, she vaguely stated it was "similar" to the weapon used. These
admissions and contradictions render her presence highly doubtful, her
version unnatural and wholly incompatible with the medical evidence,
and her testimony wholly unreliable.
7. PW-12, Harilal Chhaganlal (Exh.39), father of the deceased,
deposed that on being informed at 14:00 hours he reached the spot and
found his son dead with injuries on neck and hands but offered no
incriminating version against the accused and denied knowledge of any
prior quarrel over money. He was declared hostile.
8. PW-4, Prabhaben Prabhudas Devjibhai (Exh.30), a relative
expected to be an eyewitness, deposed that she reached the spot after the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
incident, saw the deceased fallen and a knife lying nearby, but did not
know who stabbed him or the sequence of events. She was declared
hostile.
9. PW-5 to PW-11 -- Mahesh Keshavlal (Exh.31), Samir Chimanlal
Datani (Exh.32), Sandeep Shantilal Shah (Exh.33), Anil @ Bhagat
Mohanbhai (Exh.34), Danabai Nathabhai Boriya (Exh.35), Chamanlal
Nankochand Chheepa (Exh.36), and Paresh Govindlal Khetani (Exh.37) -
all shopkeepers, tea-stall owners, or taxi drivers present in the immediate
vicinity of the busy Grain Market and Custom House area at the relevant
time, uniformly deposed complete ignorance of the incident and the
assailant despite the occurrence in broad daylight in a crowded public
place. All were declared hostile. PW-13 to PW-15, the panch witnesses
for arrest and recovery proceedings, did not support the panchnamas in
substance and were declared hostile.
10. PW-17, Bhikubha Bakulbha Jadeja (Exh.55), the Investigating
Officer, confirmed procedural steps including recording of the FIR two
hours after the incident, inquest, scene panchnama, and voluntary
surrender of the accused with blood-stained clothes and iron strip, but
admitted no recovery of a knife and uncovered no independent
eyewitnesses or substantive evidence of motive.
11. The medical evidence of PW-2, Dr. Chetan Baharilal Jani
(Exh.25), and postmortem report (Exh.28) establish homicidal death due
to multiple chop wounds on the neck severing vital vessels, but the
complainant's account of only three stab injuries and a "knife-like"
weapon is wholly inconsistent with the thirteen deep chop wounds and
the recovered blunt iron strip (Article-4).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
12. In a broad-daylight murder in a crowded commercial locality, the
wholesale hostility of every independent witness, coupled with the
interested testimony of PW-3 being riddled with contradictions, unnatural
conduct, and incompatibility with medical evidence, leaves the
prosecution case wholly uncorroborated and resting on infirm
foundations. No motive stands proved. The trial court has correctly held
that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The impugned judgment suffers from no perversity and warrants no
interference.
13. At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. 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 acquittal in the following
words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4
SCC 415]
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
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 possible on the basis of the evidence
on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial court."
14. In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2023)
9 SCC 581] the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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
reappreciating 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
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/760/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
15. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in
the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that the case of the
prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the
learned trial Court, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned
forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP
