Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajendraprasad Parasnath Shukla on 24 November, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/686/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 686 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJENDRAPRASAD PARASNATH SHUKLA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE NOT RECD BACK 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 : 24/11/2025
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 Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, passed in
Sessions Case No.96 of 1997, dated 29.01.2004, acquitting the
respondents from the offence under Section 307, 323 and 504
read with Section 114 of the IPC, the State has preferred
instant appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/686/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
3. This Court has heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State. Though served, none appears
for and on behalf of the respondents-accused.
4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that,
the respondents-accused were tried and acquitted for the
commission of the offences, as referred above. The
complainant Vidhyadhar Shukla and accused party were
belong to Bilimora, Navsari and, prior to the alleged incident,
there was a dispute with regard to sitting in the auto-rickshaw
and keeping grudge of the said dispute, on 12.12.1996, the
bike upon which the complainant was pillion and it was driven
by witness-Chandrakant Thakore, PW-2, and they were going
towards Bilimora and while passing near the scene of
occurrence, the accused party came into jeep and chased the
vehicle by and hit the bike with jeep, as a result, both the rider
of the vehicle sustained injuries. The FIR being C.R.No.64 of
1996 came to be registered with Bilimora Police Station, inter
alia, alleging that, in order to kill the rider and pillion of the
bike, the accused hit the bike by speeding jeep. The offence
under attempt to murder, causing voluntary injury being
registered and pursuant to the FIR, the four accused were
being arrested and upon completion of investigation and filing
of charge-sheet, trial proceeded against them.
5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has
examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited nine
documents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/686/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Oral evidence:-
PW 1 - Exh.52 Vidhyadhar Chandrabhai Shukla
PW 2 - Exh.54 Chandrakant Dhanusdhari Thakor
PW 3 - Exh.55 Jasuben Ravjibhai Halpati
PW 4 - Exh.60 Ziyala Ramkhilavan
PW 5 - Exh.62 Rajivkant Kamtaprasad Tiwari
PW 6 - Exh.64 Dr. Bharatbhai Ramanbhai Patel
PW 7 - Exh.68 Pradipkumar Jamnadas
PW 8 - Exh.69 Mohanbhai Radhubhai
PW 9 - Exh.73 Jethalal Tribhovandas Patel
Documentary evidence:-
Exh.53 Complaint
Exh.61 Panchnama of place of offence
Exh.63 Panchnama of recovery of muddamal
Exh.57 Arrest Panchnama
Exh.58 Arrest Panchnama
Exh.66 Medical certificate of Vidhiyadhar Shukla
Exh.67 Medical certificate of Chandrakant Thakor
Exh.59 Xerox copy of station diary
Exh.65 Police yadi
6. On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded
further statements of the accused as provided under Section
313 of the Code, 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 for the offences with which they were
charged, on the ground that, due to enmity their witnesses are
not telling truth and as per the records, the witnesses in their
first version disclosed that they received injury because of
falling on the babul fence. The learned trial Court found a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/686/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
major contradiction in the testimony of the eye witnesses,
which does not inspire confidence about their truthfulness and
credibility.
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 Vidhyadhar Shukla (PW-1):-
This witness was pillion of the bike and according to his
version, the bike was driven by Chandrakant Thakore and
it was chased by speeding jeep, allegedly driven by the
accused party and, the jeep was dashed with the bike, as
a result, they received injuries on their body. The witness
has further stated that the accused were armed with
stick and hockey and started assaulting the PW-2,
Chandrakant Thakore. The witness has stated that, after
the incident, they were hospitalized and lodged an FIR
with Bilimora Police Station at Exh.53. The witness has
stated that the accused party gave a dash to their bike
and assaulted the PW-2. In the cross-examination, the
witness has admitted that in the history before the
doctor, the theory of accidental injury being disclosed.
The witness has also admitted the contradiction with
respect to weapon and role attributed to the respondent-
accused, which they did not have disclosed in their police
statement.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/686/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
9.2 Chandrakant Thakore (PW.2):
This witness being a rider of the bike has stated in his
testimony that the accused party chased their bike and
by driving jeep in a negligent manner, jeep was dashed
with bike and after the said incident, they were beaten up
by the accused with weapons like sticks and hockey. The
witness has also stated and narrated how he had taken
treatment at private hospital. In the cross-examination,
the witness has admitted that the theory of accidental
injury being disclosed before the treating doctor. The
witness has also admitted that their relations with the
accused were strained and prior to the incident, there
was a dispute with respect to auto-rickshaw.
9.3 Jasuben Halpati (PW-3):-
This witness being a chance witness has stated that she
saw an accident between jeep and bike and also an
incident of assault between the parties. The witness has
identified the accused in the Court.
9.4 Dr.Bharat Patel (PW-4):-
This witness was serving as medical officer with Mengushi
Hospital at Bilimora. He had examined PW-1, and upon
examination of him, he found a lacerated wound on the
right leg of PW-1, Vidhyadhar Shukla. According to him, it
could be possible by hard object and the injury was
simple in nature. The witness, on the same day, had
examined PW-2, Chandrakant Thakore, and upon his
examination, he noticed an injury of CLW upto bone deep
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/686/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
and swelling on the right eye and CLW over right knee
joint, which lacerations over right shoulder, right hand
and right wrist and elbow. According to the opinion of the
doctor, the injuries were simple in nature and it could be
caused by hard object.
10. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, 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 evidence of the injured witnesses being
discarded on flimsy ground and much emphasis being given to
the medical history, which is always corroborative piece of
evidence. Thus, the trial court in a mechanical manner, has
failed to appreciate the evidence in its true prospective and
therefore, the findings of the acquittal are seems to be
contrary to the evidence on record and palpably wrong.
11. In such circumstances, as referred above, it has been
submitted 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/686/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
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?
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, the relations
of the parties were strained as due to political rivalry, there
was a dispute on the aspect of auto-rickshaw. Upon careful
examination of testimonies of eye witnesses, we found a major
contradiction and improvement on the aspect of weapon as
well as manner of incident, which did not have disclosed at the
first instance by the witnesses and, therefore, in our opinion,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/686/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
though the witnesses are eye witnesses but the possibility of
false implication due to enmity cannot be ruled out. It is
pertinent to note that the injuries, as certified by Dr.Bharatbhai
Patel, were simple in nature and, while taking treatment, there
was no need to disclose that they sustained injuries due to
falling on the babul fence. In such circumstances, the view
taken by the trial Court on the aspect of acceptability,
credibility and truthfulness of the witnesses are reasonable
and plausible view. 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.
15. 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.
Sd/-
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
R.S. MALEK
