[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Surtanbhai Khetabhai Taviyad on 28 November, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 821 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SURTANBHAI KHETABHAI TAVIYAD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,7
MR M T SAIYAD(3848) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. Challenge has been given by the State to the
judgment of acquittal dated 8.10.1998 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case no.94 of
1996. The trial was against eight accused under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 337, 324, 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections
28(b) and 28(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act,
1993 as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police
Act.
2. Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the State,
referring to the witnesses examined, submitted
that the acquittal is erroneous. The prosecution
has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by
the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW8, PW9 and
PW10, more particularly, the evidence of
Natvarsinh Madhubhai Patel and Presiding
Officer-Patel Bababhai Hirabhai. Ms. Bhatt
stated that the evidence clearly establish that
some persons had arrived on the Booth and had
assaulted the persons who were engaged in work.
The injuries gets corroborated by the medical
evidence.
2.1 Ms. Bhatt submitted that the learned Trial Court
Judge has committed an error in disbelieving the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
evidence of Shantaben only on the ground that
she has not received injuries and therefore, her
presence on the place of incident was doubted.
Ms. Bhatt further submitted that the prosecution
had not explained the injuries caused to the
accused persons. The learned Trial Court Judge
has erred in holding the witnesses as interested
and has taken into consideration the irrelevant
facts while acquitting the accused.
3. The charge was framed against the accused below
Exh.3 on the ground that on 16.6.1995 at 07.00
a.m. in the compound of the primary school at
Matafadiya of Village Lakhanpur, Taluka
Santrampur, District Panchmahal, the
complainant-Deetabhai Pujabhai Taviyad was the
agent of the Congress party candidate Kamlabhai
Chuniyabhai in Jilla Panchayat election and
witness - Kamlabhai Chuniyabhai was the agent of
the candidate of Congress party Shantaben
Parsingbhai.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
4. It was alleged that on the Ota of the school,
the procedure for filling the form was in
progress, at that time, all the accused forming
unlawful assembly wielded with deadly weapons
like sword, chain, trident (Trishul) in
furtherance of the common intention to create
disturbance in the election, had caused rioting.
With an intention to make the candidature of
Bharatiya Janata Party successful, the accused
quarreled with the complainant and the witness
at the polling booth. Accused no.1 was having
chain in his hand and gave a grievous blow on
the forehead of the complainant, accused no.1
with sword assaulted the brother of the
complainant who raised his hand to resist the
blow, sustained injury on the head, accused no.3
with the sword caused injury to witness - Mahesh
Bhikha on his right shoulder, accused no.4 with
the sword, injured Mahesh Bhikha on the hands as
well as forehead, accused no.5, threw stone on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
the chest of Khetabhai Galiyabhai causing
injury, accused no.6 with the trident injured
Bharat Chiman on the hand, while accused nos.7
and 8 had thrown stones at the booth creating
riot.
5. The charge was that had the injury caused by the
accused no.1 to witness - Parsingbhai and by
accused nos.3 and 4 to witness - Maheshbhai
could turn fatal, causing their death, would
amount to murder. The learned Trial Court Judge
observed the evidence of the witnesses to
analyze for coming to the conclusion of
acquittal. Dr. Lalsing Gulabsing Raval examined
at Exh.15-A stated that Parsingbhai Pujabhai
Taviyad and Maheshbhai Bhikhabhai Taviyad both
under transfer record of CHC, Sukhsar along with
the Medical Officer had come for treatment at
Santrampur State Hospital. On examination, he
had given Exhs.16 and 17 certificate. The Doctor
could state that injury no.1 to Parsing Pujabhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
was grievous, while injury nos.2 and 3 were
simple in nature, for Maheshbhai Bhikhabhai, it
was recorded that the injury no.1 was grievous,
while rest of the injury nos.2 to 4 were simple
in nature. According to the Doctor, the injury
which was sustained by patient - Parsingbhai
could occur with the Muddamal sword. The Doctor
stated that injury no.1 could be caused if the
blow of the sword is resisted. The injury to
Maheshbhai could be caused by the sword. In the
cross-examination, the Medical Officer affirmed
that he does not approve of the suggestion that
grievous injuries would mean life threatening.
He also affirmed that none of the injuries
caused to patient Mahesh has resulted into
fracture. The medical evidence, thus, did not
prove of any injury in the nature, which could
have been resulted fatal to the life of the
injured.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
6. Witness - Deetabhai Pujabhai was examined at
Exh.22. They are three brothers. In the year
1995, there was Taluka and District Panchayat
election. In Taluka Panchayat, the candidate was
Raghubhai, the election was on 16.6.1995. The
election center was Matafadiya Primary School.
On the date of the election, he was at the
center and had gone for filling the form of
agent of Shantaben and along with him was
Kamlabhai. When they were filling up form for
the election agent, at that time, his brother
Parsingbhai came at the center. The witness
stated that election had not started. Shantaben
and Raghubhai were the Congress candidates and
Mangdiben of Surtan Kheta was the candidate from
Bharatiya Janata Party. Against Raghubhai, there
was Bhurabhai Katara from Bharatiya Janata
Party. When they were filling up the form,
Surtansang Mansing came on the motorcycle and
after seeing them, he went towards the house of
Mangdiben. He stated that Bhursing Kheta was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
younger brother. Thereafter, he met about 15
people who arrived there in jeep no.7717 with
weapons, entering the school compound started
beating. According to him, Bhursing Dala gave
him a blow on the forehead with the chain. He
started bleeding. Surtan Kheta assaulted
Parsingbhai with the sword whose hands got cut
and another injuries were on the head who too
was bleeding. At that time, his nephew Mahesh
came there to rescue them. Kamla Jyoti assaulted
Mahesh with the sword on hand. The witness also
stated that Havsing Bhala had also beaten Mahesh
on shoulder with the sword. The injury was
grievous and therefore, he fell down on the
ground. Kheta Gadiya thereafter came there and
started throwing stones. Bharat Chiman was
assaulted by Mansing Dama on hand with trident.
The witness also stated that Mansing Kheta,
Ranga Mansing and others had also pelted stones
on them.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
7. It was brought in the cross-examination that
Raghubhai was contesting the election third time
and earlier too, during the Panchayat election,
there were riots and cases continued for two to
five years. He affirmed Shantaben and Raghubhai
being candidate of the same Congress party. He
further affirmed that at the election center,
police officer, Presiding Officer and security
people had come there. Police was present there
with gun for Bandobast. The witness does not
recall whether both the parties had moved an
application for police Bandobast prior to
election. He affirmed that Raghubhai and
Shantaben were defeated in the election and he
denied the suggestion that since they were
apprehending their defeat and therefore, had
come prepared for the riots. The witness could
not explain the injuries suffered by Surtanbhai.
He affirmed that Nathabhai and Bharat Chimanbhai
were there along with him, while denied the
suggestion that all were having sword, stick and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
stones. He denied the suggestion that Surtanbhai
was assaulted with the sword and his hands got
cut, and his life was in danger. He denied the
suggestion that in the morning, they had tried
to capture the whole booth and had created an
atmosphere endangering the life of the people.
They did not deem fit to give the complaint
before the police at the polling booth and had
not met the Presiding Officer to take the
assistance of the police at the polling center.
8. Witness - Parsingbhai Punjabhai Taviyad who was
the injured was examined at Exh.23. He was
Sarpanch for about three years of Lakhanpur Gram
Panchayat. His wife - Shantaben was contesting
the election from Congress party in Taluka
Panchayat and in District Panchayat, Raghubhai
stood for the election who is his brother.
Reiterating the same facts as stated by the
witness Deetabhai Punjabhai, he stated that he
was assaulted by Surtan Kheta with the sword
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
since he raised both his hands, he suffered
injury on his hands. He also stated that Surtan
Kheta had assaulted with the sword on his head,
while referring to injuries of other witnesses.
The witness stated that complaint of this
incident was given by his brother. The police
had come to Santrampur Hospital. He denied the
suggestion that except Parsing and Mahesh, none
had gone to the hospital. In the cross-
examination, rivalry of both the parties was
brought on record inspite of police Bandobast at
the election center and though there was
availability of police at the place of incident,
no complaint was immediately filed. It appears
that the persons from both the parties had a
clash and both the sides had sustained injuries.
However, the prosecution has failed to explain
the injuries sustained by the persons of the
opposite party. The real fact of the assault has
been suppressed. Even witness - Maheshbhai
Bhikhabhai at Exh.24 whose aunt - Shantaben was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
the candidate could only state about the
injuries suffered by the persons who were
supporting them.
9. Patel Lalabhai Hirabhai at Exh.34 stated that
he, on 15.6.1995, was appointed as Presiding
Officer at the polling booth of Matafadiya,
Ratanpur. It was Taluka Panchayat election. They
had taken all the materials for the election at
the booth. They stayed overnight there. The
Presiding Officer along with him was Dahyabhai
and there were other police persons. The
election time started at 07.45 on 16.6.1995.
They were in the room and there were verbal
quarrel between the agent, so at that time,
Presiding Officer shut the room. He stated that
the process of voting had not begun. There was
quarrel between persons of Bharatiya Janata
Party and Congress party, but has no knowledge
about who were involved in the quarrel. The
Presiding Officer has no knowledge about the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
injury.
10. Dr. Sumanben Maljibhai Palash at Exh.41 was at
Primary Health Center on his duty as Medical
Officer has referred to the injury to Mahesh
Bhikha Taviyad, Parsing Punjabhai Taviyad, Deeta
Punjabhai Taviyad, Hetabhai Taviyad. According
to the Doctor, the injury to Mahesh Bhikha
Taviyad and Parsing Punja could be by sharp
cutting weapon, while to Deeta Punja and Teeta
Daliya with hard and blunt substance.
11. Natvarlal Patel at Exh.48 had deposed about his
duty for police Bandobast during the election.
He does not know the name of the persons who had
come in the jeep. According to him, there was
verbal quarrel, one of the person in Bhagva
clothes was with Trishul in his hand, another
had sword and one had cycle chain. The person
who had come there quarreled at the place. He
moved away from the place as he sustained
injury. The witness could not name the person
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
who caused the injury, nor could he depose of
any injury to the witnesses by the accused.
12. The learned Trial Court Judge has found that the
true facts could not be brought on record. The
injury sustained by the other side has not been
proved. The production of the weapons has not
been proved by the Panchnama. The Panchas have
not supported the case. The learned Trial Court
Judge has referred to the case in Laxmansinh &
Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in 1976 Cr.L.J.
1736 to observe that when the witnesses of the
prosecution could not clarify with regard to the
injuries on the body of the accused, then in
that circumstances, the Court has to assume that
the prosecution witnesses were suppressing the
material facts of the incident and that the true
version has not been declared.
13. The admitted position is that there was clash
between the members of both the political
parties. Though the police was present there,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
the complaint has not been lodged. The witnesses
had not sought for any police protection. The
accused too have sustained injuries when the
prosecution witnesses could not explain about
the injuries caused to the accused, then as
observed by the learned Trial Court Judge, there
is reason to believe that the prosecution
witnesses are suppressing the material facts.
The evidence of the witnesses could not be
considered as reliable or inspiring confidence.
Thus, we do not find any reason to give a
contrary observation to the facts analyzed by
the learned Judge.
14. In the case of Bhagwan Sahai and Anr. v. State
of Rajasthan reported in (2016) 13 SCC 171, it
was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
8. "...Once the Court came to a
finding that the prosecution has
suppressed the genesis and origin of
the occurrence and also failed to
explain the injuries on the person
of the accused including death of
father of the appellants, the only
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
possible and probable course left
open was to grant benefit of doubt
to the appellants..."
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka ,
(2007) 4 SCC 415 it was held as under:
"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 Code of Criminal Procedure,
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
court in an appeal against
acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of "flourishes of
language" to 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."
16. In the case of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and
Anr. Vs State of Gujarat, reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 523 : 2024 INSC 295, it was held as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/821/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
under:-
"6. ...Appellate Court can interfere
with the order of acquittal only if
it is satisfied after reappreciating
the evidence that the only possible
conclusion was that the guilt of the
accused had been established beyond
a reasonable doubt. The Appellate
Court cannot overturn order of
acquittal only on the ground that
another view is possible. In other
words, the judgment of acquittal
must be found to be perverse. Unless
the Appellate Court records such a
finding, no interference can be made
with the order of acquittal..."
17. In the result to the observation made
hereinabove, we do not find any cause to
interfere and disturb the findings of the
learned Trial Court Judge in the judgment of
acquittal. The appeal stands dismissed. Registry
is directed to send the record and proceedings
back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Maulik
