Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhagvan Murli Bharad on 26 November, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/240/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 240 of 2001
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
BHAGVAN MURLI BHARAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 26/11/2025
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, Surat, in Sessions Case No.313 of
1999 dated 30.12.2000, acquitting the respondent from the
offence under Sections 302 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code,
the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of
the Cr.P.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/240/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
3. This Court has heard Mr.Ronak Raval, 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 respondent-accused, Bhagvan Murli, was tried and
prosecuted for the offence of kidnapping and murder.
According to prosecution case, on 13.5.1999, the accused-
respondent, under the pretext to give a Pepsi to the minor
child Siddhant, kidnapped and taken to Udhana area of Surat
and the child was thrown into the creek under the bridge. The
dead-body of the deceased found by the police on the basis of
missing complaint. The maternal uncle of the deceased, PW-4,
lodged an FIR against the accused, inter alia, stating that, the
accused was an employee and having habit to consume liquor
and after consuming the same, he has tendency to harass the
room partners, as a result, the father of the child, directed him
to live separately in any other area of Surat. It is further
alleged that the accused separated from the complainant party
and started living in the other area of Surat. Keeping grudge in
mind of this incident, the respondent-accused took the
deceased child from one Bhagvan Gaud under the pretext to
give him a Pepsi and assured the Bhagvan Gaud that he will
leave the child at his home. The accused, along with the child,
went to the shop of PW-3 and purchased the Pepsi and other
things and then he disappeared. The dead-body of the child
was found from the creek of Udhana area. The delay being
explained that they were busy with the after-death rituals. On
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/240/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
the basis of complaint and upon due investigation, the accused
after his arrest, charge-sheeted for the offence of kidnapping
and murder.
5. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions
Court, the Court committed the case to the Sessions Court,
which has been culminated into Sessions Case No.313 of 1999.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, Surat, framed charge under
Section 302 and 365 of the IPC against the accused to which,
he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In the course of trial, the prosecution adduced the
following oral as well as documentary evidence in support of
his case:
Oral evidence:-
PW 1 - Exh.8 Dr. Swapnil Sudhirkumar Agrawal
PW 2 - Exh.11 Musa Kirtan
PW 3 - Exh.16 Rajniben Satyanarayan
PW 4 - Exh.17 Laxman Gulam
PW 5 - Exh.20 Satyam Uday
PW 6 - Exh.25 Jamal Magan
PW 7 - Exh.26 Ramrao Lilaji
PW 8 - Exh.28 Sanatan Gadadhar
PW 9 - Exh.29 Shushma Sanatani
PW 10 - Exh.31 Bhagwan Vipra
PW 11 - Exh.34 Rajendrasinh Gabaji
PW 12 - Exh.35 Abdula Jalana Lakhoy
PW 13 - Exh.42 Ramsinh Vejabhai
PW 14 - Exh.45 Ravindra Dhansukh
PW 15 - Exh.48 Deepsinh Gurusinh
Documentary evidence:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/240/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
Exh.43 Order to register complaint
Exh.18 Original Complaint
Exh.12 Inquest Panchnama
Exh.13 Panchnama of place of offence
Exh.21 Panchnama of identification of deceased
Exh.14 Panchnama of clothes recovered from the
deceased
Exh.15 Panchnama of place of offence
Exh.22 Panchnama
Exh.49 Recovery Panchnama
Exh.10 Cause of death certificate
Exh.9 PM Note
Exh.7 FSL Report
Exh.23 Station diary entry copy
Exh.24 Station diary entry copy
Exh.47 FSL Report
8. On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded
further statements of the accused as provided under Section
313 of the Code, wherein, he claimed his innocence.
9. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating and
examining the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted
the accused herein for the offences with which he was
charged, on the ground that, the witnesses of last seen
together failed to disclose before the police that the deceased
was in company of the accused. The trial Court has considered
the major contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses
about the theory of last seen together and extended the
benefit of doubt by acquitting the accused.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/240/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
10. Oral Evidence adduced by the prosecution:
10.1 Dr.Swapnil Agrawal (PW-1):-
This witness being a medical officer of Civil Hospital,
Surat, had conducted postmortem on the body of the
deceased and according to his opinion, the cause of
death was asphyxia due to drowning.
10.2 Musa Kirtan (PW-2):-
This witness being a related to both the parties, has
stated that on 13.5.1999, at about 9.30 p.m. he had seen
the accused along with the child-Siddhant and the
accused was going towards the society.
10.3 Rajniben Satyanarayan (PW-3) :-
This witness being an owner of grocery shop, has stated
that on 13.5.1999, at about 7.30, the accused along with
the child came to his shop and on his demand, she had
sold Pepsi and other things to him. In the cross-
examination, she had admitted that before the police,
she did not disclose the said things.
10.4 Laxman Nayak (PW-4):_
This witness being maternal uncle of the child had lodged
an FIR on 19.5.1999 for the incident allegedly occurred
on 13.5.1999. The witness has stated that the accused
being unemployed was harassing to the complainant
party and he was directed to live alone. The witness has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/240/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
further stated that the accused had killed the deceased-
child because he had grudge about living alone. The
witness has further stated that the accused kidnapped
the child from the Bhagvan Gaud and then he killed the
child by throwing him in the creek of the Udhana area. In
the cross-examination, he has admitted that the police
recorded his statement twice and in both the statements,
he did not disclose that the accused took the child from
Bhagvan Gaud.
10.5 Sanatan Gadadhar (PW-8) & Sushma Jain (PW-9):-
Both these witnesses are mother and father of the child
and according to their statement, the accused took away
their child from Bhagvan Gaud and then killed him and
the motive behind the murder was that he was asked to
live alone in the other area. The witnesses, in the cross-
examination, have admitted that the factual aspect of
taking away of their child by the accused being not
disclosed in their police statements.
10.6 Bhagvan Vipra Gaud (PW-10):-
This witness in his chief-examination, has stated that on
13.5.1999, when the child was with him, the accused
took the child from him and assured that he will hand
over the child to his parents. The witness also admitted
that the said facts being not disclosed by him in his police
statement.
11. Mr.Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/240/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
appearing for the appellant - State, while 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. That the witnesses examined
by the prosecution have categorically stated that the child was
with the accused and after purchasing Pepsi and other things,
he failed to hand over the child to the parents. In such
circumstances, in absence of any cogent explanation on the
part of the accused, the inference can be drawn against him
that he was the author of the crime because he was having
grudge on the aspect of vacating the room, which was earlier
occupied by him. In such circumstances, the prosecution has
successfully proved the charge against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
12. Thus, it has been urged 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 respondent accused and the judgment and
order of acquittal be set aside and accused may be convicted
and sentenced for the offence as referred above.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/240/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
13. 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.
14. In the present case the issue falls for our consideration as
to whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the
accused?
15. We have carefully examined the oral as well as
documentary evidence and perused the findings of acquittal
rendered by the Trial Court.
16. In the case on hand, the entire prosecution case rests on
the circumstantial evidence. The witnesses examined have
claimed that the deceased was lastly in the company of the
accused. It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution is obliged to prove each
circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete
that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probabilities, the crime was committed by the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/240/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
and none-else. It is not in dispute that death of the deceased
was homicidal in nature. The alleged incident being taken
place on 13.5.1999, after 8.30 p.m. The FIR alleging against
the accused came to be lodged on 19.5.1999. During six days,
on the basis of registration of accidental death, the police
interrogated the witnesses and during their interrogation,
nothing was disclosed against the accused that under the
pretext to give Pepsi the deceased was kidnapped and killed
by him. Present is a case where except for the evidence of last
seen together, there is no incriminating material against the
respondent-accused. The Supreme Court in its various
judgments held and observed that evidence on "last seen
together" is a weak piece of evidence and conviction only on
the basis of "last seen together", without there being any other
corroborative piece of evidence against the accused is not
sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section
302 of IPC. In the case on hand, the evidence of "last seen
together" is also suspicious because for a period of six days,
the witnesses did not disclose the facts that the deceased
lastly was in the company of the accused and, therefore, this
contradiction being a major contradiction directly impact on
the credibility of the witnesses. In such circumstances, the
available evidence is not sufficient to infer that the deceased
was lastly in the company of the accused and he was the
author of the crime. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/240/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
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.
17. 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
