Gujarat High Court
Roshanbibi D/O Azizbhai Mansuri vs Ranjit Chanduji Thakore on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 06/08/2025
Pronounced On : 21/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 740 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ROSHANBIBI D/O AZIZBHAI MANSURI
Versus
RANJIT CHANDUJI THAKORE & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH K SHAH(784) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
1 Rule. Learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma waives service of
Rule on behalf of the State.
2 The present revision application has been preferred by
the present petitioner - original complainant under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short "Cr.P.C.") directed
against the judgment passed in Sessions Case No.125 of
2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
and City, Civil & Sessions Judge, Court No.9,
Ahmedabad acquitting the original accused from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 135
(1) of the Bombay Police Act by judgment dated
28.10.2004. The present petitioner is daughter of the
original complainant of the sessions case.
3 The factual matrix of the present application is as under:
3.1 The original complainant has given one complaint
before the Shaherkotda Police Station for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
(For short "IPC") and Section 135 (1) of the Bombay
Police Act vide I - C.R. No. 272 of 2002 on 24.10.2002.
The case of the prosecution before the learned Trial
Court is that in the complaint, it is alleged that the
complainant - Salimbhai @ Bablu Azizbhai Mansuri is
the real brother of the deceased Khalilbhai Azizbhai
Mansuri and the complainant is residing at Saraspur,
Ahmedabad and his younger brother Khalilbhai Azizbhai
Mansuri was residing at Narol area and on 23.10.2002,
at the evening time, his brother Khalilbhai Azizbhai
Mansuri came to his home to give money to his mother
and he has given Rs.1100/- to his mother and stayed
there and slept on the said night there and on the next
morning, complainant - Salimbhai @ Bablu Azizbhai
Mansuri and the deceased Khalilbhai Azizbhai Mansuri
were sitting in the lobby in front of their house and were
talking and at that time, the accused - Ranjit Chanduji
came there and told them that Khalilbhai Azizbhai
Mansuri to go for some tea and thereafter, they both
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
went from the home of the complainant and in the
evening at about 04:45 P.M., accused - Ranjitbhai while
passing through the house of the complainant, the
complainant has asked to his brother and at that time,
the accused - Ranjitbhai told him that his brother is
lying behind the ESIC dispensary and he has suffered
some injury on his head and that is why the complainant
- Salimbhai @ Bablu Azizbhai Mansuri rushed to the said
place of incident and he came to know that Khalilbhai
Azizbhai Mansuri has already been taken to the
Shardaben Hospital for the treatment, so, he went to the
Shardaben Hospital to inquire about his brother and
then, he came to know that his brother Khalilbhai
Azizbhai Mansuri has already been taken to the Civil
Hospiratl for further treatment and when he reached to
Civil Hospital, he found that his brother has been died in
the hospital because of the injuries and hence, the
reason for the incident as stated by the complainant in
the complaint is that on prior to this incident, the
accused has quarrel with the brother of the complainant.
Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the investigation
has been carried out and the chargesheet has been filed
against the present applicant - original accused and
subsequently, the matter has been committed to the
Sessions Court.
3.2 After the committal of the case, it was given
Sessions Case No.125 of 2003 and as per the charge
against the accused person, it was stated that on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
24.10.2002, he has quarrel with the brother of the
complainant and on 24.10.2002, the accused came to the
house of the complainant and took the deceased
Khalilbhai Azizbhai Mansuri with him for cup of tea and
thereafter, at about 12:00 O'clock in the compound of
the dispensary/hospital, he gave the stick blow on the
head of the Khalilbhai Azizbhai Mansuri and because of
that, Khalilbhai Azizbhai Mansuri was died because of
the injury suffered and the charge under Section 302 of
the IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act has
been framed against the accused vide Exhibit-1 but the
accused has been now guilty and the prosecution has
totally examined 15 witnesses mainly the PW-1 -
Salimbhai @ Bablu Azizbhai Mansuri, brother of the
deceased and complainant vide Exhibit-15, PW-2 -
Azizbhai Ilahibaksh Mansuri, father of the deceased vide
Exhibit-17, PW-3 - Abdulrahim Andulakr Sheikh, panch
witness vide Exhibit-18, PW-4 - Roshanbibi Azizbhai,
mother of the deceased vide Exhibit-20, PW-5 -
Munnabhai Babulal Shukla vide Exhibit-21, PW-6 -
Alisher Vajirbhai Mansuri vide Exhibit-28, PW-7 -
Mohammadhanif Ramjanibhai vide Exhibit-30, PW-8 -
Munavar Munshibhai vide Exhibit-35, PW-9 - Police
officer of the dogs squad vide Exhibit-36, PW-10 -
Anavarkhan Akbarkhan Pathan, Investgiating Officer
vide Exhibit-37, PW-11 - Dr. Narendra Mohanray Joshi,
vide Exhibit-39, PW-12 - Dr. Chandrakant Bachubhai
Patel, Civil Hospital, Emergency Board, vide Exhibit-41,
PW-13 - Dr. Kartik Ratansinhbhai Sutariya, vide Exhibit-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
43, PW-14 - Haribhai Labhshankar Jani, Police
Inspector, I.O. vide Exhibit-45, PW-15 - Aniruddhsinhji
Aamersinhji Jadeja, Police Official vide Exhibit-50 and
total 18 documents have been produced.
3.3 After the deposition of all the witnesses and after
hearing the arguments of the learned advocates for
respective parties, the learned Sessions Court was
pleased to acquit the original accused - present
respondent no.1 - Ranjit from the offences punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the
Bombay Police Act on 29.10.2004 and being aggrieved
and dissatisfied by the said judgment, the present
revision application has been preferred by the present
petitioner - original complainant.
4 Heard the learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Shah for the
petitioner and it is submitted that the learned Sessions
Judge ought to have considered that the Investigating
Officer has collected the evidences against the
respondent no.1 - Ranjit. As the case is purely on the
basis of the circumstantial evidence, it is the case purely
on the basis of the accused was lastly seen together with
the deceased and within a close proximity of time, the
dead body of the deceased was found and it was
established before the Sessions Court that this aspect
has not been considered. Further, it is submitted that
the learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered the
deposition of the complainant - Salimbhai @ Bablu
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
Azizbhai Mansuri below Exhibit-15 and the brother of
the petitioner who is complainant dated 18.05.2004 and
there is no contradiction, omission or exgretion during
the cross-examination and the learned Sessions Judge
failed to consider the same and hence, the Judgment of
acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside.
Further, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge
ought to have considered that the deposition given by
Azizbhai Mansuri, father of the deceased who was
examined vide Exhibit-17 and Roshanbibi Azizbhai -
mother of the deceased who was examined. Both the
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution
and further, it is submitted that panch witness -
Abdulraheman Abdul Qadar Sheikh supported the case
of the prosecution, independent witness - Munnabhai
Babulal Shukla who has lastly seen the deceased with
the accused, also supported the case of the prosecution
and another witness - Alisher Mansuri who also seen the
accused with the deceased Khalilbhai Azizbhai Mansuri
at the ESIC dispensary street and they have seen
together. Further, panch witness of the recovery and
discovery panchnama - Mohammadhanif Ramjanibhai, in
whose presence, the accused has produced the cloths
before the police authority and the bloodshed was found
on the said cloth and supported by the report of the FSL
and it contains the blood group of the deceased but this
aspect has not been considered and another witness -
Munavar Munshibhai supported the case of the
prosecution. So, considering this, all the witnesses have
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, as there is
no eye-witness but the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable time and hence, the judgment and
order passed by the learned Sessions Court is required
to be quashed and set aside and the present applicant be
convicted.
5 Respondent no.1 - original accused has already been
duly served but not appeared and the respondent no.2 -
State has been represented by the learned APP Mr. Niraj
Sharma and the State has not preferred any appeal, so,
necessary orders may be passed.
6 After hearing the rival submissions of the learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties and
perusing the impugned judgment passed by the learned
Sessions Judge and also perused the Record &
Proceedings of the learned Trial Court, the present
revision application has been preferred by the present
petitioner who is the original complainant against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions
Judge. In this regard, it is required to consider the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kallu
@ Masih vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Hon'ble Apex
Court held as under:
"7. The circumstances in which an appellate
court will interfere with the finding of acquittal
recorded by a trial court are reiterated in Bhim
Singh V/s. State of Haryana, thus:-
"Before concluding, we would like to point out
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
that this Court in a number of cases has held that
an appellate court entertaining an appeal from
the judgment of acquittal by the trial court
though entitled to reappreciate the evidence and
come to an independent conclusion, it should not
do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if
from the same set of evidence two views are
possible and if the trial court has taken one view
on the said evidence, unless the appellate court
comes to the conclusion that the view taken by
the trial court is either perverse or such that no
reasonable person could come to that conclusion
or that such a finding of the trial court is not
based on any material on record, it should not
merely because another conclusion is possible
reverse the finding of the trial court."
8. While deciding an appeal against
acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no
less than the power exercised while hearing
appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire
evidence. However, one significant difference is
that an order of acquittal will not be interfered
with, by an appellate court, where the judgment
of the trial court is based on evidence and the
view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not
reverse the decision of the trial court merely
because a different view is possible. The
appellate court will also bear in mind that there
is a presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and the accused is entitled to get the
benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to
interfere, it should assign reasons for differing
with the decision of the trial court."
7 So, from it, it appears that the law with regards to the
acquittal appeal is well crystallized and normally in
acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused and it is finally culminated when
case ends in the acquittal and the learned trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
appreciated the evidence and learned trial Court has
come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not
proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets
strengthened. There is no inhibition to re-appreciate the
evidence by the appellate court. After re-appreciation,
the view taken by the learned trial court was a possible
view. There is no reason for the Appellate Court to
interfere in the same.
8 Considering this, in the present case, mainly, the
medical evidence is concerned, the deceased was
brought to the Shardaben Hospital for the treatment at
about 03:30 P.M. on the fateful day and he was
examined by Dr. Kartik Sutariya who was examined as
PW-13 vide Exhibit-43 and as per the deposition, it is
established that the deceased was brought there, he was
alive but he had some problem in breathing and he
found the injury on the head and blood was coming from
the said injury and the case papers have been produced
vide Exhibit-44. Subsequently, Dr. Chandrakant Patel -
PW-12 vide Exhibit-41 has been examined who has also
treated the deceased and lastly, Dr. Narendra Joshi has
been examined as PW-11 vide Exhibit-39 who has
performed the Post Mortum on the body of the deceased
and as per the report of the Post Mortum, 12 injuries
have been found on the body of the deceased and
internal injury corresponding to the external injury has
been found and cause of death is found to be because of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
these injuries, the deceased had been died as the head
injury has been suffered corresponding to that, internal
injury has been suffice enough to cause the death. So,
the prosecution has established that an unnatural death
of Khalilbhai Azizbhai Mansuri is there and it is a
culpable homicidal death.
9 Further, now, as the prosecution has already established
that the death of the deceased is of unnatural and
culpable homicide and it is an admitted position that the
present case in hand is concerned, there is no eye-
witness and the case is purely based on the
circumstantial evidence and in this regard, the learned
Trial Court has first of all, appreciated the deposition of
the original complainant - Salimbhai Azizbhai is
concerned, in paragraph no.20 of the judgment, the
learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion so far the
FIR given by the complainant before the police is
concerned, it has not been considered as an FIR but it
was hit by Section 161 of the Cr.P.C as discussed in the
earlier paragraph that on 24.10.2002, at evening, 06:00
P.M. to 07:00 P.M., it was already been informed to the
concerned police that incident of murder has already
taken place and it pertains to a disclosure of the
cognizable offence and hence, complaint given by the
original complainant cannot be termed as FIR and hit by
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Further, it is an admitted
position that so far as the said witness is concerned, he
is not the eye-witness to the incident but as per his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
deposition, he has given the complainant and he has
doubt against the original accused and another
Kishansinh Tomar but the police has not arrested
Kishansinh Tomar as he has not been arraingned as an
accused. Now, the learned Sessions Judge has also
considered the deposition of the witness and major
contradiction has been found in the cross-examination.
Further, learned Sessions Court has considered this fact
that the prosecution is mainly relying upon that on
24.10.2002 at around 09:00 O'clock in the morning,
deceased Khalilbhai Azizbhai Mansuri was at his home
and at that time, (1) the accused - Ranjit took Khalilbhai
Azizbhai Mansuri with him for cup of tea (2) on
24.10.2002, at about 11:30 A.M, two witnesses have
seen deceased Khalilbhai Azizbhai Mansuri with the
accused - Ranjit and (3) At the instance of the accused,
his cloth has been found and from the cloth, the blood of
the deceased was found as per the FSL report and (4)
Dog has been taken to the house of the accused. Except
this, there is no other circumstances has been put
forward by the prosecution, Further, the learned
Sessions Judge has considered this and appreciated that
all above circumstance is found to be doubtful as all the
three witnesses i.e. complainant - Salimbhai, father of
the deceased Azizbhai and the mother of the deceased
Roshanbibi is concerned, the cause for the incident is
that prior to the incident, during the riots of the year
2002, their home has been burnt and looted the utensils
of the home and at that time, the Khalilbhai Azizbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
Mansuri has asked regarding whether he knows
anything about who has taken away the utensils and
because of that, they have got some quarrels and this
incident has been taken place.
10 Learned Sessions Court has considered this and as per
the deposition of the original complainant - Salimbhai
that at 09:00 O'clock, he and the accused had went for a
cup of tea till about 04:00 O'clock and 05:00 O'clock in
the evening, the complainant has not made any inquiry
regarding his brother. So, this conduct of the
complainant is also creating doubt. Further, other
witnesses are concerned i.e. Munnabhai Shukla, PW-5
vide Exhibit-21 and PW-6 - Alisher Vajirbhai Mansuri
vide Exhibit-28 is concerned, as per the case of the
prosecution, these two witnesses have seen the accused
with the deceased in the ESIC dispensary on that day.
So far as depositions of both the witnesses, they found
the deceased and the accused in a drunken position and
they are not able to even stand properly but in the Post
Mortum report, it was not found the presence of the
alcohol in the blood of the deceased. Further, the
presence of the Munnabhai - witness is concerned is also
doubtful and it is not a natural witness and his presence
in the ESIC dispensary has been doubted by the learned
Sessions Court and after this, in detail, he has
appreciated this fact. As per the witness, he usually
visited the house of Siddiqbhai on Sunday but the date
of incident is concerned, it was held on Thrusday so, his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
presence at the ESIC dispensary is doubtful and the
other witness - Alisher Mansuri who has been claimed
that he has seen both the deceased and the accused in
drunken position and from his deposition, it transpires
that from the scene of the offence is concerned, nearby
there is Tambu Chowki of the SRP is there and near
that, there is tea stall and two quarters of doctor are
there and nobody has seen the incident. The incident
happened in brought daylight and even in the Post
Mortum report, presence of the alcohol has not been
found in the blood of the deceased.
11 So, considering this, the case is concerned, no eye-
witness has been there and case is purely based on the
circumstantial evidence, so, as per the settled legal
position, the prosecution has to establish a complete
chain of the proved circumstances and which lead to the
Court to the extent that the offence has been committed
by the present accused only and except the present
accused, no other person has committed this offence.
Further, looking to the deposition of the panchas and
investigating officers, the panchnama under Section 27
of the Evidence Act has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. So, considering this, learned Sessions
Court has, after appreciating the evidence produced
before the Court, come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has reasonably failed to prove the case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/740/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
12 In view of the above legal settled position, learned
Sessions Court has appreciated the entire evidence in
proper perspective and there does not appear to be any
illegality in the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal. Learned Sessions Judge has appreciated all
the evidence and this Court is also of the considered
opinion that learned Trial Court was completely justified
in acquitting the accused of the charge leveled against
them and the findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court absolutely just and proper and no illegality or
infirmity has been committed by the learned Sessions
Court and this Court is in complete agreement to the
findings and ultimate conclusion and the resultant order
of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Court. This
Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order of the acquittal, the present revision
application is devoid of merits and the same is
dismissed.
13 The present revision application is dismissed and the
judgment passed in Sessions Case No.125 of 2003
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.9, Ahmedabad acquitting the original accused from
the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section
135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act is hereby confirmed.
14 Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
JCP
