Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dineshbhai Kadavabhai Khasarya on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 350 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
=================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DINESHBHAI KADAVABHAI KHASARYA & ORS.
=================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4,5
URJA B DAVE(7461) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,6
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:46:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 22.06.2011
passed in Sessions Case No. 182 of 2007 on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, whereby, the respondents herein
were acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under
Sections 395, 397, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC).
2. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell may be stated as
follow:
2.1 The offence took place on 16.04.2007 as per the prosecution
version. Prior to the said date of offence, an accident took place
when PW-2 was driving a vehicle and in the said accident, father of
accused No. 2 (A2) and another person were injured. So, A2, bore
grudge against PW-2 as his father sustained injuries in the accident
that occurred due to the negligent driving of PW-2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
2.2 So, it is stated, that on 16.04.2007 at about 9:00 a.m. in the
morning when PW-2 and PW-6, who is his uncle, were coming in a
Jeep, while PW-2 was driving the Jeep and PW-6 was sitting on the
backside of the Jeep and when they reached near the bus-stop of the
village, that accused Nos. 1 to 6 (A1 to A6) together waylaid the
Jeep and A2 caught hold of the collar of PW-2, who was driving the
Jeep and pulled him out of the Jeep and thereafter, A1 to A4 and A6,
who are holding sticks and A5, who is holding an iron pipe, attacked
PW-2 with the said weapons and beat him and caused injuries to him
and when PW-6 tried to intervene, that they also tried to attack him
and out of fear, he ran away from the said place. He went to the
house of PW-2 and informed about the same to his son, who is PW-7
and both of them came to the scene of offence and they found PW-2
in unconscious state lying on the road and after they came, the
accused left the scene of offence and went away. It is stated that
some cash and a gold chain, which are kept in the Jeep in a bag,
belonging to PW-2, was also taken away by force by the accused.
2.3 Thereafter, PW-6 and PW-7 took PW-2 to the hospital. On the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
intimation given by the hospital staff, police visited the hospital.
PW-6 has lodged a report with the police and it was registered as a
case against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The case was
investigated. Thereafter, the statement of the injured PW-2 was
recorded by the police. The injured, who was in the hospital was
discharged. The accused were arrested on 28.05.2007 during the
course of the investigation. It is stated that on the disclosure
statement given by them that they would show the place where the
sticks and iron pipe were hidden if the police accompany them, that
they led the police and the mediator who is examined as PW-5 to the
place where the weapons were hidden and at the instance of the
accused, it is stated, that the police have recovered and seized the
sticks and iron pipe in the presence of the mediator. The scene of
offence was also observed in the presence of mediators who are
examined as PW-3 and PW-4. After completion of investigation,
police laid the Charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid
offences.
2.4 After the accused made their appearance in the trial Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
charges for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 504,
506 and 427 of IPC were framed against them. They denied the said
charges and claimed to be tried.
2.5 During the course of the trial, the prosecution got examined
PW-1 to PW-10 witnesses and got marked five exhibits to
substantiate its case against the accused.
2.6 At the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence
on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the
accused not guilty for any of the charges levelled against them and
acquitted them of the said charges by the impugned judgment.
2.7 Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal questioning the
legality and validity of the said judgment.
3. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Krina Calla for the appellant -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
State and Ms. Urja B. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.
1 to 3 and 6. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 expired during the course of
appeal and the appeal against them stood abated.
4. Although, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-10
witnesses to substantiate its case against the accused, only the
evidence of PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7 is relevant in the context to
consider as only PW-2 and PW-6 are the eye-witnesses to the
incident and PW-7 subsequently reached the scene of offence, after
the incident took place. All other witnesses are only the panch
witnesses for the arrest and recovery of the crime weapons and the
observation of scene of offence and official witnesses who are police
personnel and the doctor who examined the injured.
5. As per the facts narrated supra, the offence took place in a
broad daylight at about 9:00 a.m. and that too, in a busy locality near
a bus-stop. Therefore, the scene of offence is not an isolated place
and as the incident is said to have taken place near the bus-stop, it is
a busy locality. Prosecution did not cite any witnesses from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
locality where the alleged offence took place, who would be the
independent witnesses and the probable witnesses to speak whether
any such incident has actually taken place or not. As the offence
took place in a busy locality near a bus-stop and during the day time,
definitely, there would be independent witnesses available at the
scene of offence who might have witnessed the incident, if it has
really taken place. No explanation is offered by the prosecution for
not examining any of the inmates of the said locality or other
independent witnesses at the scene of offence. Therefore, their non-
examination is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution.
5.1 So, there remains only the evidence of PW-2 and PW-6.
According to the prosecution version, PW-2 was driving the Jeep
and PW-6 was sitting on the backside of the Jeep when the accused
waylaid the Jeep. In the FIR that was lodged by PW-6 at the earliest
point of time, immediately after the occurrence, he has mentioned in
it that the accused have shown their hands and stopped the vehicle.
But contrary to the said version mentioned in the FIR, both, the PW-
2 and PW-6 stated in their evidence that the accused have shown a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
stick and they have stopped the vehicle. So, there is inconsistency in
the evidence of PW-2 and PW-6 when compared with the contents
of the FIR, which is of the earliest version regarding the manner in
which the vehicle was stopped by the accused. This inconsistency in
their evidence with the contents of the FIR not only renders their
testimony doubtful but it affects the veracity of the testimony given
by them in the Court. Further, PW-6 stated that when he tried to
intervene when the accused have been attacking the PW-2 that he
ran away out of fear. So, it is evident that he did not actually
witnessed accused attacking PW-2. According to him, he ran away
and went to the house of PW-2 and brought his son PW-7 to the
scene of offence and at that time both PW-6 and PW-7 found PW-2
in unconscious state on the road. So, PW-6 could not give the
independent overt acts as to who beat PW-2 and how they beat him.
5.2 Now, it is significant to note that PW-2, who is the injured
although stated that A2 sat on his chest and other accused beat him
indiscriminately, he has admitted in his cross-examination that he
does not have left hand and left leg. Drawing our attention to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
said admission and the evidence given by PW-2 in his cross-
examination that he does not have the left hand and the left leg,
learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that when
his left hand and left leg were amputated and he does not have the
upper and lower limbs on one side that it is not possible for him to
drive the Jeep and the trial Court also, in its judgment, clearly held
that when he does not have the left hand and left leg, that he could
not drive the Jeep. So, the learned counsel for the respondents
would contend that the version of the prosecution and also the
evidence of PW-2 and PW-6 that when PW-2 was driving the Jeep
that the accused waylaid the Jeep and attacked him, is absolutely
false. We find considerable force in the said contention of learned
counsel for the respondents. When PW-2 categorically admitted in
his cross-examination that he does not have the left hand and left leg,
his evidence that when he was driving the Jeep that the accused
intercepted the said Jeep and attacked him, cannot be believed.
5.3 Further, the cash and the gold chain alleged to have been
stolen from the Jeep was not recovered by the police in this case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
PW-2 also did not explain in his evidence as to why he was carrying
the cash and gold in a bag in the Jeep. Therefore, it is doubtful
whether he was really carrying any such cash and gold in a bag in
the Jeep.
5.4 Even though the sticks and the iron pipe said to have been
used in commission of the offence were recovered by the police on
the alleged disclosure statement said to have been given by the
accused at the time of their arrest in the presence of the mediator,
examined as PW-5, it is relevant to note that PW-5 did not support
the said case of the prosecution. He did not depose that the accused
gave any such disclosure statement and that, he led him along with
police to the place where the said weapons were hidden and that, at
the instance of the accused that the said weapons were recovered.
So, the recovery of weapons is not proved in this case.
5.5 Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt
of the accused for any of the charges levelled against them with
acceptable legal and cogent evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt.
There are several infirmities in the case of the prosecution which
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
makes the entire prosecution story shrouded in high suspicion.
5.6 The trial Court, after considering the said evidence on record
and on proper appreciation of the said evidence on record arrived at
a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the
accused. Upon considering the said evidence on record and on
reappraisal of the same, we are in complete agreement with the
findings recorded by the trial Court and we do not find any legal
flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Therefore,
the impugned judgment is sustainable under law and it calls for no
interference in this appeal. So, the appeal fails and it is liable to be
dismissed.
6. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of
acquittal of the trial Court. Bail bond shall stand discharged. R&P
be transmitted back to the trial Court, forthwith.
[ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ]
[ D. M. Vyas, J. ]
hiren/SB-I-1tss11925@16:05
