Gujarat High Court
Jelubhai Bhikhabhai Vara vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 339 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
JELUBHAI BHIKHABHAI VARA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Appellant(s) No. 1,3,4
BHISHMA A. RAWAL(12270) for the Appellant(s) No. 2
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 2
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal was filed by the
appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'Cr.P.C.')
against the judgment dated 20.03.2003, by which
the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Amreli in Sessions Case No.41 of 2002, convicted
all the appellants under Sections 325 read with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
"IPC") and sentenced them for three years and six
months rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine
further six months simple imprisonment, and for
the offence under Section 506(1) read with
Section 34 IPC, the appellants were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The
fine amount was ordered to be paid to the
dependants of deceased.
2. The facts of the case, as could be gathered
from the record states that on 24.11.2001,
Mohanbhai Raghavbhai gave a complaint against the
appellants alleging that appellant accused No.2 -
Jayraj alias Jayubhai Gorakhbhai Vara being armed
with iron pipe and other appellants assaulted
deceased - Laljibhai Virabhai. It is alleged in
the complaint that appellant accused No.3 -
Dadubhai Matrabhai Dhandhal had squeezed the
testicles of the deceased - Laljibhai Virabhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
and thereby he succumbed to the injuries.
2.1 On the strength of above complaint, which
was registered at Chalala Police Station vide
Cr.No.I-79/2001 for the offences punishable under
Section 302, 34, 506(2) and Section 323 of IPC as
well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police
Act, the offence was investigated by the Chalala
Police and ultimately charge-sheet was filed
against all the appellants.
2.2 The case was committed to the Court of
sessions, which came to be numbered as Sessions
Case No.41 of 2002. The charges were framed and
during the course of trial, witnesses were
examined and ultimately, by judgment dated
20.03.2003, all the accused were convicted for
the offence, as above.
3. The appellants were four in number, who were
convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
Track Court. During the pendency of the appeal,
since accused No.1, 3 and 4 were deceased, the
appeal stood abated against them. Hence, the
present appeal is proceeded by appellant No.2.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Bhishma A.Rawal for the
appellant No.2 submitted that the judgment of
conviction is erroneous and unwarranted on the
facts and circumstances of the case. The learned
Judge has relied upon three witnesses; two have
been considered as eye witnesses and further the
reliance is also placed on the testimony of the
Doctor.
4.1 Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted that the
deposition of so called eye witnesses, Mohanbhai
Raghavbhai and Jagdishbhai Baghabhai does not
inspire confidence. The incident had taken place
on 24.11.2001 in the noon at about 3 O' clock,
Mr. Rawal stated that as per the evidence of
these witnesses, they both were standing near the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
place of incident, where 'Bhagwat Saptah' was
going on. They deposed that at a distance of
about 60 ft., deceased Laljibhai Virabhai was
grazing his cattle and at that time all four
appellants came and assaulted deceased. Advocate
Mr. Rawal submitted that among all the
appellants, appellant No.2 - Jayraj was armed
with pipe, who assaulted deceased on his chest
and stomach and rest of the appellants gave fist
blows to deceased and appellant No3 had squeezed
the testicles of deceased. Advocate Mr. Rawal
contended that had the assailants come with the
intention to murder, then all would have been
armed with deadly weapons. Further, contended
that the weapon ascribed to appellant No.2 is
also doubtful.
4.2 Mr. Rawal submitted that as per deposition
of Dr. Sureshbhai Kabariya as well as postmortem
report, there were no external injuries on the
body of deceased and the cause of death, as noted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
in the postmortem report was shock due to
hemorrhage (intra abdominal) due to rupture of
spleen. Mr. Rawal submitted that postmortem
report further notes about the enlarged spleen of
deceased, wherein Doctor had given very cogent
evidence that an enlarged spleen becomes fragile
and brittle.
4.3 Advocate Mr. Rawal further submitted
regarding the location of spleen, the Doctor had
deposed that the spleen is located on left side
of the stomach, which is protected by the layer
of ribs, muscles and skin, and for a rupture of
normal spleen it requires grinding force. Mr.
Rawal further stated that doctor had deposed that
if the person is injured by a pipe, then there
will be an injury in the nature of contusion and
laceration, and if the person is assaulted or
injured or beaten by such pipe or a stick, then
the person will suffer an injury showing railroad
pattern injury.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
4.4 Learned advocate Mr. Rawal further stated
that as per the doctor if the person is injured
by such pipes or stick, the injury in the nature
of laceration, contusion, abrasion etc. would be
found on the person of the injured. The doctor
had deposed that if the fist blows are given on
the person and if such fist blows are given on
the soft part of person, then also marks of
injury would be on the person of the injured, and
has also deposed that a person having an enlarged
spleen is vulnerable to rupture of such spleen by
even coughing or even falling down.
4.5 Advocate Mr. Rawal further submitted that
the evidence of both eye-witnesses is not only
contrary or conflicting to the medical evidence,
but their evidence does not get any corroboration
from the medical evidence. Mr. Rawal stated that
the doctor had deposed that if the injury is
caused by fist blows or with the iron pipe or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
with stick, there would be an injury in the
nature of contusion, laceration, abrasion etc.
4.6 Advocate Mr. Rawal further submitted that
the evidence of eye-witnesses are not only
contrary and conflicting to the medical evidence,
and does not get any corroboration from the
medical evidence, thus, submitted that in absence
of any injury, the conviction under Section 325
appears to be totally unwarranted.
4.7 Learned advocate Mr. Rawal stated that the
learned Judge has tried to emphasize the act of
appellant No.3 for squeezing testicles of the
deceased, however, as per the medical evidence,
there is no injury on the testicles. On overall
submission of the evidence recorded during the
trial, learned Advocate Mr. Rawal urged to acquit
appellant No.2.
4.8 Learned advocate Mr. Rawal has relied on
following judgments to fortify his arguments.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
(i) Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC
282;
(ii) Thaman Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh) ,
(2003) 6 SCC 380.
5. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the State
submitted that the present appellant's role is
major in the present incident, while rest of the
accused have facilitated the present appellant as
accused No.2, who with the iron pipe had given
blow on the vital part of the body of deceased,
which has been the cause of death of the
deceased. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt further stated
that the accused had the motive to kill deceased
because of the earlier enmity owing to the
murder. The evidence of complainant as well as
witness are corroborating in nature and they have
given the true version of what they had seen. Ms.
Bhatt submitted that there is no reason to
disbelieve both the witnesses.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
5.1 Supporting the impugned judgment of the
learned Judge, Ms. Bhatt submitted that the
charge of Section 302 read with Section 34 and
506(2) IPC was not believed and the analysis of
the evidence had led to the conviction under
Section 325, 506(1) of IPC, which is just and
proper with the sentence appropriately awarded,
hence, submitted that the judgment and conviction
and sentence be upheld.
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the
sides from the array of the evidence, the
postmortem report would require a pre-dominance
in analysis of the evidence. The cause of death
of deceased - Laljibhai Virabhai Bambhaniya was
shock due to hemorrhage (intra abdominal) due to
rupture of spleen. Column-17 does not record any
injury, rather it is noted in Column-17 that
there are no any external injury marks over body.
Column-15 is with regard to external genital
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
organs, which does not record any marks of
injury, while recording coloured seminal
discharge from urethra, the column further notes
that stool was passed.
7. The case against four accused was to face the
charge under Section 302 read with section 34 and
section 506(2) of the IPC being drawn stating
that on 24.11.2001 at about 15:00 hours in the
outskirt of village Manabhav in the field of
Jadavbhai Bhurabhai Ahir in Dhari Taluka of
Amreli District, all the accused in furtherance
of common criminal intention, criminally
intimidated complainant - Mohanbhai Raghavbhai
and Jagdishbhai Raghavbhai and caused breach of
public peace by publically threatening to kill
them and in such an offence abetting each other
had caused offence under Section 506(2) IPC.
7.1 Further, on the same day, time and place all
the accused in furtherance of common intention
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
out of four, accused No.4, caught hold of
Laljibhai Virabhai Ahir, and accused No.2 with an
iron pipe gave a blow on his chest and accused
No.3 had squeezed the testicles, while accused
No.1 had given fist blows and thereby had caused
voluntary grievous hurt sufficient to cause death
and/or by that offence all the accused in concert
had committed the offence under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
7.2 The accused No.2 was also charged for breach
of proclamation of the District Magistrate for
the prohibition of weapons, thus, was charged
under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
8. The charge specified accused No.2 of having
caused injury on the chest with the iron pipe,
while accused No.3 was alleged of squeezing the
testicles of the deceased and accused No.1 of
giving fist blows. The postmortem report does not
corroborate any of such injury.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
8.1 The deposition of the Doctor - Sureshbhai
Balibhai Kabariya (P.W.1) refers to enlarged
spleen. The Doctor had also specified that there
was no external injury on the person of the
deceased. The Doctor evidence cogently states
that the enlarged spleen becomes fragile and
brittle. The spleen is located on the left side
of stomach, while the allegation against accused
No.2 was of iron pipe blow on the chest. The
spleen, as physically known and even as deposed
by the Doctor is protected by layers of ribs,
muscles and skin. Doctor had deposed that rupture
of normal spleen requires grinding force. In
accordance to deposition of the Doctor, if a
person is injured by a pipe, then there will be
injury in the nature of contusion and laceration.
He further deposed that if the person is
assaulted or injured or beaten by such pipe or a
stick, then such person would suffer railroad
pattern injury, and the part on which such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
injuries are caused marks of injuries will be
clearly seen, and further stated that if the
person is injured by such pipes or stick, the
injury in the nature of laceration, contusion,
abrasion would be found on the person of the
injured.
8.2 The Doctor further stated that if fist blows
are given on the person and if such fist blows
are given on the soft part of the person, then
there will be visible marks of injury on the
person of the injured. The evidence of the Doctor
further notes that the person, who is having an
enlarged spleen is vulnerable to rupture of such
spleen by coughing or even by falling down.
8.3 The evidence of Doctor - Sureshbhai Balibhai
Kabariya (P.W.1) coupled with postmortem report,
suggests that no external injuries were observed.
The cause of death is rupture of spleen. Column-
20 against the subject 'spleen', the observation
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
of the Doctor is 'Spleen are enlarged and
Ruptured from middle about 10 x 8 x 2 cm. Blood
clots are found over Ruptured area', kidneys
congested, Bladder was empty and congested,
stomach was full of food particles.
9. In background of this medical evidence, the
evidence of the witnesses, who claimed themselves
to be the eye-witnesses, Mohanbhai Raghavbhai
(P.W.2), who is also complainant and Jagdish
Badhabhai (P.W.3) of the occurrence, would
require examination. Both the witnesses are
related to deceased. The Court would thus, have
the duty to properly examine and appreciate the
credibility of the witness with the principle in
mind that the credibility of evidence is not
based on person's relationship or purpose but the
truth, which should be verified considerably.
9.1 P.W.4 - Mohanbhai Jadavbhai, the panch
witness of panchnama (Exh.28) drawn on 24.11.2001
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
at Dhari Hospital was declared hostile. The
cross-examination of the witness records that
from the dead body pant, shirt and underwear
(nicker) were seized. Exh.28 was drawn between
23.00 to 23.30 hours.
9.2 P.W.5 - Riyajali Nasrubhai was the panch of
arrest panchnama (Exh.30) dated 07.12.2001
between 0.30 to 1.30 hours, while the witness
denied arrest of accused No.1 - Jelubhai Vara,
accused No.2 - Jayraj alias Jayu Gorakh and
accused No.3 - Dadubhai Matrabhai. P.W.6 -
Imranbhai Babubhai was also the panch of Exh.30,
who too had not supported the prosecution. P.W.11
- Dhirubhai Sambhubhai was a panch of arrest
panchnama Exh.39 dated 07.12.2001 between 20.30
to 21.00 hours of accused No.4 - Ramkubhai
Bhikhabhai, denying the arrest, had even denied
the production of clothes by the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
9.3 P.W.7 - Kanubhai Chunibhai Chauhan and P.W.8
- Dilubhai Banabhai were the hostile panchas of
discovery panchnama (Exh.33). They have denied of
appellant accused No.2 - Jayraj alias Jayu Gorakh
producing muddamal iron pipe from a place between
Manva Morgher village and even denied of muddamal
clothes seized of the present appellant.
9.4 P.W.9 - Maganbhai Gandabhai and P.W.10 -
Laljibhai Dudabhai were the panch witnesses
examined for Exh.36, the panchnama of the place
of incident, which was drawn on 25.11.2001. The
hostile witnesses denied of the place of incident
being shown by Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Bambhaniya
(P.W.2) and also denied the suggestion of seizing
of soil and grass as well as control soil, as
sample from the place of incident.
10. Exh.36, the panchnama notes that the
complainant - Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Bambhaniya had
shown the place of offence as 40 Bigha
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
agriculture land of Jivabhai Bhurabhai Ahir and
on the eastern border, 12 Bigha uncultivated land
was noted and beyond that cactus fence and on the
western side of the fence, approximately 30 feet
area was shown as a place of offence, where the
grass was found of short stature, which was also
found scattered, and nothing was found remarkable
at the place to be seized, nor any blood stains
were observed at the place shown by the
complainant. The grass was found scattered in the
area of 4 x 5 feet from where 100 gram soil was
dug and small quantity of dry grass was taken in
an iron box.
10.1 In the background of these evidence, that
the place of offence was shown by the complainant
(P.W.2), who claims to be the eye-witness to the
incident, nothing abnormal was observed at the
place of incident. No blood stains were found.
The grass, which was found scattered was in the
area of 4 x 5 feet distance and it was a land
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
belonging to Jadavbhai Bhurabhai Ahir. The owner
of the land had not been examined in the present
matter.
10.2 The evidence of Doctor Sureshbhai Balibhai
Kabariya (P.W.1) was to the effect that on
24.11.2001 in the evening at 4:55, dead body of
years, resident of Ambardi was brought by his
relative Bachubhai Arjanbhai Bambhaniya from
Community Health Center, Dhari with Yadi to
P.S.I. Dhari. The Yadi was placed in evidence at
Exh.19. The document Exh.19 - Yadi refers to
P.S.I. Dhari, where it was recorded by Medical
Officer, Referral Hospital, Dhari to P.S.I. Dhari
with subject to inform that the dead body was
brought to their Hospital by their relatives and
the Medical Officer had asked for investigation.
The relative, who had brought the dead body was
named as Bachubhai Arjanbhai Bambhaniya at 17:15
p.m. on 24.11.2001. The postmortem was conducted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
between 21.40 to 23:40 hours. Exh.19 as well as
postmortem report Exh.20 refers to the relative
as Bachubhai Arjanbhai Bambhaniya. Even Doctor
(P.W.1) had given the same name. The Doctor found
the age of deceased as of 22 years. The dead body
was brought on 24.11.2001 at 21:30 hours.
10.3 P.W.12 - Yashinbhai Ibrahimbhai on
24.11.2001, was at Chalala Police Station as in-
charge P.S.O. During that period at 20.15 hours
unarmed police constable - Jayantbhai Bhayabhai
from Dhari Government Hospital brought a
complaint, which was taken by Police Sub-
inspector Shri Chavda. The complaint was of
Mohanbhai Ahir (sic.), resident of Ambardi, for
registration along with the report. P.W.2
registered the offence and handed the further
investigation to Shri A.B. Chavda. P.W.12
identified the complaint Exh.24 and report of
P.S.I. Shri Chavda Exh.41. The complaint was
registered as C.R. No.79 of 2001 under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
302 and 114 of IPC, Section 135 of B.P. Act. He
produced a copy of Station Diary No.2 at Exh.42.
In the cross-examination, the P.S.O. stated that
Exh.41, the report, refers that the Police Sub-
inspector was engaged in the 'Bandobast' of Gram
Panchayat election work and the offence was
registered of the present incident on that day at
8:15 night, and about 15 minutes prior he
received the complaint as well as report.
10.4 The distance between Chalala Police Station
and Dhari Hospital was of 17 to 18 kms. The
person, who had brought complaint named
Jayantkumar, had come on motorcycle from Dhari.
The witness stated that there was no initial or
his signature on Exh.41 and the police report to
signify his receiving the same, and whatever he
stated was as per his memory. He stated that the
handwriting at Exh.42, which is station diary,
was of constable Mansukhbhai and he had no
personal knowledge of Exh.42.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
10.5 Exh.42 is Station Diary Entry No.2 with
time noted as 1.00 hour. The entry was dated
26.11.2001. The entry was in relation to I-
Cr.No.79/01 under Section 302 IPC noting that
accused of the matter (i) Ramku Bhikha Kadi (ii)
Jilu Bhikha Kadi (iii) Jayu Gorakh Kadi and (iv)
Dadu Jatra Kadi, all resident of Mannavav are
very ferocious and were habitual offenders and
after commission of the crime are in a habit of
absconding and inconspicuously hiding themselves
and prolonging late at night hour, were taking
shelter in their residential house, therefore,
secret watch was kept on them, and on receiving
the information that the accused for clothes and
money have come to Dhari, therefore, in presence
of two panchas with lady constable Kokilaben
along with the staffs, the inquiry was made. In
the house women and children were found present.
During search, women were alleged to be
chattering against police stating that they would
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
file complaint, since they were coming to their
house. Noting that the search of the house was
made bound within the limits, and accordingly
panchnama was drawn under Section 165 of Cr.P.C.
Since accused were not found and without hurting
the religious feelings and without causing any
damage, panchnama was drawn, for that purpose,
necessary entry was made. Further, the entry also
noted that during the combing, necessary
procedure was undertaken under the instruction of
the superior officer.
11. The documents, Exh.41 and Exh.42 discloses
that it was an election period of Gram Panchayat.
The accused were shown to be the persons as
habitual offenders and on that basis during the
combing process the house of the accused were
searched in connection with the present offence.
The women of the house took objection to such
search. It has not happened that the complainant
had gone to the Police Station to give complaint.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
P.W.12 as P.S.O. had no personal information
about the complaint.
12. The Investigating Officer as P.W.16 -
Amarsinh Bhimsinh Chavda affirmed that on
24.11.2001, he was on his duty in the election of
Gram Panchayat in rural area of Gopalgram and
when he was coming from Padargad to Ambardi, he
received a wireless message from Dhari Police
Station that in his area of Ambardi, Manavav
village, there was 'Bhaghvat Saptha' at Surapura
and in 'Kharava Bid' land at the outskirt of
village Ambardi a person had died because of the
injury sustained during the quarrel and in the
dead condition, the body was brought to the
Government Dispensary, Dhari and therefore, he
was called at Government Hospital, Dhari for
necessary procedure. The Investigating Officer
stated that he received the message at 5:30 hours
in the evening and during that period from
Chalala Police Station too, he got the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
information of the incident. Therefore, from
outskirt of Ambardi village he came to Dhari
Government Dispensary, where he saw deceased's
relatives and the complainant of the matter and
other persons present and when he inquired from
the Doctor, the dead body was on the stretcher of
postmortem room therefore, by keeping the
complainant - Mohanbhai Raghavbhai along with
him, along with two persons as panchas, drew the
inquest panchnama and sent the complaint for
registration from Government Hospital with Police
Constable - Jayantbhai at Dhari Police Station
and the complaint was registered at Dhari Police
Station as I-C.R. No.79/01 under Sections 302,
114 and 323 IPC.
12.1 After registration of the complaint since
the Investigating Officer was at Dhari
Dispensary, he undertook the work of seizing
blood stain clothes. He recorded the statement of
relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, he reached
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
the place of offence along with complainant, who
showed the place of offence and thereafter, drew
the panchnama and also made further investigation
at the place of Surapura, where 'Bhagvat Saptha'
was organized.
13. The complainant P.W.2 - Mohanbhai
Raghavbhai, appears to be the paternal uncle of
deceased. The deceased is the son of his elder
brother Virabhai and the deceased was the eldest
son of Virabhai, who had two sons and two
daughters. The younger son was Kishore and
daughters were Sharda and Vilasben. All the
children were staying along with Virabhai and
were doing household and agriculture work.
14. In the case of Thaman Kumar (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para-16 as
under:
"16. The conflict between oral testimony and
medical evidence can be of varied dimensions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
and shapes. There may be a case where there
is total absence of injuries which are
normally caused by a particular weapon.
There is another category where though the
injuries found on the victim are of the type
which are possible by the weapon of assault,
but the size and dimension of the injuries
do not exactly tally with the size and
dimension of the weapon. The third category
can be where the injuries found on the
victim are such which are normally caused by
the weapon of assault but they are not found
on that portion of the body where they are
deposed to have been caused by the
eyewitnesses. The same kind of inference
cannot be drawn in the three categories of
apparent conflict in oral and medical
evidence enumerated above. In the first
category it may legitimately be inferred
that the oral evidence regarding assault
having been made from a particular weapon is
not truthful. However, in the second and
third categories no such inference can
straight away be drawn. The manner and
method of assault, the position of the
victim, the resistance offered by him, the
opportunity available to the witnesses to
see the occurrence like their distance,
presence of light and many other similar
factors will have to be taken into
consideration in judging the reliability of
ocular testimony.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
14.1 In context of the above observation, when
there is total absence of the injuries which are
normally caused by a particular weapon, it may
legitimately inferred that the oral evidence
regarding assault having been made from a
particular weapon is not truthful.
15. From evidence of the complainant, it
transpires that he along with P.W.3 - Jagdish
Bagha were in the management of 'Bhagvat Saptha',
which was arranged at Maandan Mata Temple for
four days. The organizer of the 'Saptha' was
Kalubhai Kundlavala. The complainant stated that
in this incident his nephew Laljibhai died. On
the day of incident at Maandan Ata Temple
organizer Kalubhai was present and there were
around 400 to 500 people present. On that day,
'Saptha' was till 12 O' clock in the afternoon
and after 12.00, there was relaxation for lunch
or rest and again the 'Saptha' was to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
continued at 3 O' clock.
15.1 The complainant stated that at 3.00 hours,
many people had gathered and among them
Kishorebhai, Jagdishbhai and Laljibhai were also
present. After 'Saptha' at 3 O' clock, the
complainant and Jagdishbhai (P.W.3) were under
the instructions of Kalubhai overlooking the
generator. The complainant stated that the
generator was in the field of Jadav Bhura. The
generator was at the distance of 30 feet from the
place of 'Saptha'.
15.2 The complainant stated that in the
incident, deceased was grazing cattle in the open
land, wherein the generator was installed. The
witness and Jagdishbhai (P.W.3) were near the
generator. At that time, four persons from
Manavav were approaching, they were (1) Ramkubhai
Bhikhabhai (2) Jayubhai Gorakhbhai (3) Dadubhai
Matrabhai (4) Jilubhai Bikhabhai. All of them
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
complainant stated were of 'Darbar' community, it
was about 3.00 to 3.30 hours. Out of the four,
Jayu Gorakh was having iron-T in his hand and all
four of them came near Laljibhai when he was
grazing the cattle and Ramkubhai Bhikhabhai (A-4)
held the hands of deceased Lalji and Jayu Gorakh
(A-2) gave a blow with iron-T to his nephew Lalji
at the chest and abdomen. Dadu Matra (A-3)
squeezed the testicles of deceased.
15.3 The complainant stated that Ramkubhai (A-4)
Dadubhai (A-3), Jilubhai (A-1) were beating
Laljibhai and at that time, his nephew Laljibhai
was shouting. Hearing his shouts, the witness and
P.W.3 - Jagdish tried to go near Laljibhai, at
that time, Ramku Bhikha (A-4) and Jayu Gorakh (A-
2) gave them threat saying that they should stand
there otherwise their condition would be the
same. The witness stated that he and Jagdish both
got frightened and therefore, they stood where
they were and started shouting, and during that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
period all four persons started running towards
the outskirt of village Manavav. The complainant
stated that public in the 'Saptha' also started
running and at that time Lalji, Kishore and
Devsi, three of them came there, and all the five
thereafter, reached near the place where Lalji
Vira was lying down. The witness P.W.2 stated
that when they reached there, Lalji showed the
place, where he received blows with iron-T on his
body. The complainant further stated that he was
showing with gestures since there was foam in his
mouth. Thereafter, complainant witness P.W.2 and
Jagdish P.W.3 both took Lalji Vira to his field
and they both again went to the place, where the
'Saptha' was going on for making arrangement for
car or motorcycle. The complainant P.W.2 stated
that when they reached there, no person was
present there, nor any motorcycle, therefore,
complainant and witness Jagdish came back in the
field.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
16. In the case of State of Haryana Vs.
Shakuntla, 2012 (2) RCR (Cri.) 845 SC, the
Supreme Court attempts to substantiate the
credibility of an interested witness, as per
Court a witness is someone who has a direct or
indirect interest in the accused, who has been
convicted for a reason of animus or any other
oblique motive. It is an agreed fact that the
evidence of an interested witness is
untrustworthy and must be verified before being
accepted.
16.1 Furthermore, as stated in State of Haryana
Vs. Shakuntla (supra), it is widely accepted that
interested witnesses want the accused to be
convicted, hence judicial caution is essential
when hearing such testimony.
17. The very strange aspect, which becomes
noticeable is that along with P.W.2 and P.W.3,
there were Laljibhai Maandanbhai, Kishor and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
Devsinh. P.W.2 complainant is not describing
about the role played by these three persons.
P.W.2 is not stating that Lalji Mandan, Kishore
and Devsinh had helped them to carry the body of
Lalji Vira. What these three people were doing
that is not clarified, while P.W.2 and P.W.3 had
gone for the search of a vehicle. It appears that
Lalji Vira was left alone in the field, when
P.W.2 and P.W.3 had gone searching for vehicle.
According to the complainant, when they came back
Devsinh, Kishore and Lalji, three of them had
taken injured Lalji Vira home and thereafter, he
and P.W.3 Jagdish reached the house of injured
Lalji, at that time, mother of Lalji, Shantaben
was crying. Hence, they inquired as to why she
was crying, who informed that Lalji was taken to
hospital and when they asked Shantaben as to who
had taken Lalji to the hospital, Shantaben
replied that it was Bachubhai and Vallavbhai who
had taken Lalji to the hospital in a rickshaw.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
Thereafter, P.W.2 and P.W.3, when came back in
the village on motorcycle and from there to Dhari
Government Hospital and when they reached the
Hospital, they heard people saying that Lalji was
dead.
17.1 When Laljibhai Maandanbhai, Kishore and
Devsi had taken Lalji home, they could have
certainly taken Lalji Vira to the Hospital,
however, that had not happened. It may be that
the condition may not be critical or Laljibhai
must already been dead or as contended by
Advocate Bhishma Raval the incident actually must
not have occurred . P.W.2 does not state of
seeing all the three, Laljibhai Maandanbhai,
Kishore and Devsi at home, nor had he enquired
from Shantaben. It was Bachubhai and Vallabhbhai,
who had taken Lalji Vira at the Hospital. It may
have happened that Lalji Vira may not have come
to the land for grazing the cattle. He must have
fallen sick at home from where he was taken to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
hospital. Bachubhai and Vallabhbhai was not
examined, who could have deposed to corroborate
the say of P.W.2 and P.W.3.
17.2 What comes on record is that Kishore is the
real brother of Lalji Vira, while he is nowhere
to be found in the house or at the Hospital, nor
Kishore is taking his brother Lalji at the
Hospital. It is also very strange to note that
there were about 400-500 people present in the
'Saptha'. Inspite of that, P.W.2 and P.W.3 did
not find any vehicle to take Lalji Vira to the
Hospital. Further, the witness stated that he saw
foam in the mouth of deceased, however, P.M. Note
does not record any foam like substance in the
mouth. Postmortem Report clarifies that there was
no discharge from ear, nose and mouth.
17.3 The cause of the incident according to
complainant was that the present accused
Ramkubhai (A-4) and Jelubhai (A-1) and others
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
earlier had murdered their uncle Jiva Bhura and
in that incident, there was a settlement by those
persons in connection with the land of
'Sattadhari' and thereafter, the witness stated
that they had murdered his nephew Lalji. Prior to
the murder of his uncle Jivabhai, there was
murder of Nagjibhai Najabhai, who was relative of
accused. Thereafter, there was murder of his
uncle and in both the cases, there was settlement
of land of 'Sattadhar'.
17.4 The complainant when he came to Dhari
Dispensary, had given the complaint Exh.24. He
also identified the muddamal iron-T, which he
says was in the hand of present appellant-
accused No.2 - Jayu Ghorak.
17.5 In the cross-examination, the fact which
was brought on record was that the witness is
residing in village Ambardi since birth.
Jagishbhai (P.W.3) is paternal cousin, who was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
also resident of Ambardi. 'Saptha' continued till
6.00 in the evening. The witness stated that the
place surrounding the 'Saptha' was open.
17.6 Initially, he saw accused Nos.1 to 4, they
were at a distance of 100 feet. His nephew was at
a distance of 60 feet. The 'Saptha' had completed
four days, wherein people from Manavav Ambardi
and surrounding villages had come. When Lalji
shouted, he was at a distance of 60 feet. The
witness stated that the incident completed in
five minutes. The witness stated that during this
period Jagdish P.W.3 was all along with him.
Within this five minutes, they had not gone to
call any other person, nor had they tried to
intervene to rescue Lalji. The witness stated
that if they would go walking from the place,
where the generator was installed, to their field
it would take about 15 minutes. When they took
Lalji to the field and again came back at the
'Saptha' and again reached to the field, it took
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
about 30 minutes. The witness stated that in the
incident neither his clothes nor of Jagdish got
blood stains.
17.7 The witness P.W.2 further stated that from
the field thereafter to the village, they took
about two hours to reach the hospital. During
this period and prior to reaching the house of
Laljibhai neither he, nor Jagdish had thought of
giving complaint to the police.
17.8 The conduct of P.W.2 becomes very much
doubtful. The deceased was at a distance of 60
feet. He and Kishore were both together, inspite
of that they had not tried to intervene and save
Lalji Vira. The immediate act ought to have been
to take Lalji Vira to Hospital and it is
unbelievable that they did not find any vehicle
at the place. There was 'Saptha' attended by 400
to 500 people of the village as well as
surrounding villages. It is unbelievable that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
none of the villager had lended their vehicle to
take Lalji Vira to hospital. How Laljibhai
Maandan, Kishore and Devsinh carried Lalji Vira
home and why Lalji Vira was not taken directly to
the Hospital was not explained. It was Bachubhai
and Vallavbhai, who had taken Lalji Vira from
home to the Hospital in rickshaw of Madhubhai
Abalbhai. Bachubhai, Vallabhai and Madhubhai all
are the resident of Ambardi village.
17.9 As per cross-examination of P.W.2, the
persons, who took Laljibhai to the Hospital were
related to the deceased, as Vallabhai Rajabhai
was uncle, while Bachubhai Arjanbhai was the
uncle of deceased's father. It is neither P.W.2
nor P.W.3, nor Laljibhai Maandanbhai, Kishore or
Devsinh, who had taken deceased Lalji Vira to
Hospital. The witness from his village to the
Hospital had gone in vehicle, however, he could
not take the deceased to the Hospital, stating
that he could not locate any vehicle there, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
itself becomes a contrary evidence and unlikely
at a place where 'Saptha'was attended by 400 to
500 people. No statement of the organizer of
'Saptha' Kalubhai Kundlawala was recorded.
18. The incident of murder of Jivabhai Bhurabhai
was of the year 1991. He denied the suggestion
that keeping the grudge of murder of Jiva Bhura,
they along with community leader Devsinhbhai and
under the advise of other community members and
society representatives had filed a false
complaint against the accused. The witness stated
that he came to know of death of Lalji Vira only
at Dhari Hospital.
19. At the cost of repetition, it is required to
again make a mention of Exh.19, whereby P.S.O.
Dhari had informed P.S.I. Dhari of the
information received from Medical Officer,
Referral Hospital and C.H.C. Center Dhari,
District - Amreli that the Police Diary Entry
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
No.15/2001 at 17:30 hours, Shri Bhuva of C.H.C.
Center had declared that Lalji Virabhai
Bambhaniya aged about 20 years was brought dead
by his relatives. So, accordingly, Bachubhai
Arjanbhai Bambhaniya, the relative, had brought
dead body at C.H.C. Center at 17:15 hours, so at
5:15 p.m., the death was recorded.
20. In the case of Anil Phukan (supra), it was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that,
conviction can be based on the testimony of a
single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or
evidence which says to the contrary, provided the
sole witness passes the test of reliability. So
long as the single eyewitness is a wholly
reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in
basing conviction on his testimony alone.
However, where the single eyewitness is not found
to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense
that there are some circumstances which may show
that he could have an interest in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
prosecution, then the courts generally insist
upon some independent corroboration of his
testimony, in material particulars, before
recording conviction. It is only when the courts
find that the single eyewitness is a wholly
unreliable witness that his testimony is
discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration
can cure that defect.
20.1 It was further held in the case of Anil
Phukan (supra) that, mere relationship with the
deceased is no ground to discard his testimony,
if it is otherwise found to be reliable and
trustworthy. In the normal course of events, a
close relation would be the last person to spare
the real assailant and implicate a false person.
However, the possibility that he may also
implicate some innocent person along with the
real assailant cannot be ruled out and therefore,
as a matter of prudence, court should look for
some independent corroboration of his testimony,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
to decide about the involvement of the other
accused in the crime.
21. The complainant was nowhere near the
deceased, when he died. The fact of his searching
for a vehicle is not at all believable, as there
were 400 to 500 people attending 'Saptha', as
stated by the complainant at a distance of 30
feet. Evidence was brought in the cross-
examination that they had not decided to take
deceased from the place of incident to the
dispensary in vehicle and Kishorebhai, Laljibhai
and others who were standing, were aware of the
fact that the witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3
Kishorebhai had left the place for bringing a
vehicle. They had carried the injured from the
place of incident to the field of Virabhai, the
father of the deceased. When they returned back
at the field of Virabhai, no one was present
there to inform them that the injured was taken
to hospital, and none had informed him at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
field of Virabhai that Laljibhai was taken home.
The witness stated that he himself had believed
so. Three witnesses Kishorebhai, Devjibhai and
Laljibhai, who were stated by the complainant
were at the place of offence, thereafter, for the
whole day did not meet the witness, however, the
witness voluntarily stated that all three had met
him in the evening at the house of the deceased.
Complainant also affirmed that when Bachubhai and
Vallavbhai took deceased in the rickshaw, brother
of deceased Kishorebhai was present at home. He
had given the complaint approximately after three
hours of deceased being taken to the Hospital.
When he had given the complaint to the police,
Jagdishbhai - P.W.3 was along with him.
22. Police had not recorded the statement of
Jagdishbhai immediately, but recorded on the next
day. The witness stated that the kitchen of
'Saptha' was running totally nearby. From the
field to their house, they had gone walking and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
it took about half an hour to reach home. The
conduct of the complainant is very unnatural when
he and witness had the knowledge that the
condition of Laljibhai was critical, they still
were leisurely going home, the testimony becomes
doubtful. If he had actually seen the condition
of the deceased, as described by him, where the
deceased was not in a condition to orally
narrate, while was explaining them in gesture and
when the complainant had seen foam coming out of
his mouth, he would not have left the deceased
there and further they would have made
arrangement immediately for the vehicle at the
place of incident, which was the field of
Jadavbhai Bhurabhai Ahir. The complainant stated
that they took deceased from Jadavbhai Bhurabhai
Ahir field to complainant's father field. The
complainant does not even have the knowledge, as
to what had happened to deceased and whether he
died or whether Kishorebhai and others had taken
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
the deceased to the Hospital. The evidence of
I.O. was that Laljibhai was brought dead to the
dispensary.
22.1 Jagdishbhai Badhabhai P.W.3 is also
resident of Ambardi and Virabhai father of the
deceased was his elder paternal uncle. The
witness states about 'Saptha' organized by
Kalubhai and Laljibhai of Savarkundla. As per the
witness he, P.W.3, and P.W.2 were volunteers to
supply milk and butter milk to the attendees of
'Saptha'. The evidence also has come on record of
P.W.3 that they were supplying milk and butter
milk through rickshaw. Inspite of this fact, the
complainant as well as this witness had not made
arrangement to take deceased in that rickshaw to
the Hospital. P.W.3 stated that pipe was in the
hand of accused No.2 - Jayu, while there were no
weapons with the other three. Accused No.2 had
given blow with the pipe on the chest as well as
abdomen, while accused No.4 - Ramkubhika, had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
caught hold of deceased Lalji. He has referred to
the same fact, as has been stated by the
complainant. The witness has also stated that his
personal three persons Kishore, Devsinh and third
Lalji Velji, hearing the shouts had come there.
The evidence further states that he as well as
P.W.2 - Mohan took injured Lalji Vira at the
field of Virabhai, at that time, no other person
was present in the field. They left injured
Laljibhai in the field and came back to 'Saptha',
where they did not find any vehicle.
22.2 In the cross-examination the witness stated
that there was murder of Jivabhai, who was their
elder father and also there was murder of Nagbhai
of Manvavav village and there was settlement with
respect to land of 'Sattadhar'.
22.3 As per evidence of P.W.3, the house of the
complainant as well as house of this witness and
even that of the deceased Laljibhai are
adjoining. He stated that Kishorebhai is brother
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
of Laljibhai and Devsinh was his brother and the
house of Lalji Velji was adjoining to their
house. When they had gone to the Hospital,
neither Devsinh, Kishore nor Lalji Velji were
present. The witness stated that when the police
had come to Dhari Dispensary, he had not on his
own informed the police about the incident.
22.4 The witness in the cross-examination stated
that on that day of 'Saptha' there were about 400
to 500 people. He also clarified that in 'Saptha'
he and Mohanbhai, the complainant, only two were
the volunteers giving service, while there were
no other else, as volunteers. The witness has
also stated about the old enmity because of the
murder.
22.5 The evidence of both the witnesses has been
projected as eye witness, however, their evidence
as well as conduct does not find consistency with
the conduct of other persons, who are stated to
be relative, who had taken deceased to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
Hospital. The C.H.C. Center reports that Lalji
was brought dead. Even police, the Investigation
Officer, had the wireless message that the dead
body was brought to Dhari Government Hospital.
Three other witnesses had not been examined, the
conduct of these three persons, Kishore, Devsinh
and Lalji Maandan are also suspicious on the
evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 being analysed. All
are neighbours. None of them had taken the
deceased to the Hospital. Kishore was real
brother of deceased.
23. The Investigating Officer - Shri Chavda
(P.W.16) had not clarified about the conduct of
all the witnesses. The complaint was directly
registered under Section 302 IPC. The
Investigating Officer stated that he had not
seized medical papers with regard to the
preliminary treatment of deceased Laljibhai.
24. The record suggests that all the panch
witnesses were related to the complainant,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
however, none of them have supported the
complainant or P.W.3. The panchas of recovery of
weapon from Jayu (A-2) had also turned hostile.
Entire conviction is based on the testimony of
two interested witnesses. As referred and on
analysis of the evidence herein before, their
conduct during the time of the alleged incident
as well as thereafter is highly unnatural,
suspicious and unreliable. The Medical Officer
has categorically deposed that there were no
external injuries on the body of the deceased and
the cause of the death was rupture of enlarged
spleen, which Doctor deposed that it could occur
even due to coughing or falling. The prosecution
has failed to establish a nexus between the
alleged act of the present appellant and the
cause of death. No injury corroborates the use of
weapon as iron pipe. Despite, 400 to 500 people
present there attending religious function of
'Saptha', there is no explanation as to why there
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
was no assistance from other person. Apart from
the interested witnesses, no other independent
person had come forward to support the
complainant and the witness. The enmity between
the two group had been brought on record. There
were two murders earlier and it was Gram
Panchayat election time too. There is no
corroboration of injuries from medical evidence.
25. In the case of Ram Narain Singh Vs. State
of Punjab, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1727, it is
observed that if the evidence of the witnesses
for prosecution is totally inconsistent with the
medical evidence it would be most fundamental
defects in the prosecution case unless reasonable
explained, it is sufficient to discredit the
entire case.
26. On the analysis of the evidence of both the
witnesses, P.W.2 - complainant and P.W.3, their
evidence becomes unbelievable, since they had the
motive to falsely rope the accused in the matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
The deceased was taken to the Hospital by another
set of persons, who have not been examined in the
matter during the trial. The real fact of the
injury has not been brought on record by way of
any preliminary medical treatment, albeit the
evidence is to the effect that Laljibhai was
brought dead to the C.H.C. Center. There was no
preliminary treatment at C.H.C. Center. The
witness P.W.2 and P.W.3 though were closely
related to the deceased - Laljibhai and had
stated to be very near from the place of incident
had not taken any interest to intervene to rescue
the deceased. As has been observed in Anil Phukan
case (supra), if such close relative does not
make attempt to save the deceased and when the
statement is contrary to the medical evidence the
testimony of such eye witness could not be relied
upon for conviction of the accused.
27. It has been observed in the case of
Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol Vs. Dinesh Dayabhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
Vala And Ors., (2022) 18 SCC 683, that ocular
evidence is the best evidence unless there are
reasons to doubt it. It is only in case when
there is gross contradiction between the medical
evidence and oral evidence and the medical
evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable
and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence
being true, the ocular evidence may be
disbelieved.
28. On observing the facts and circumstances, as
alleged by the witnesses and the evidence on
record with the medical evidence, it could be
scrutinized that there is material contradiction
between the ocular evidence and medical evidence.
Absence of external injuries and no injuries
found on the alleged part, as deposed by the
witnesses and when the evidence of the material
witnesses are contradictory to the medical
evidence on record, then the ocular evidence is
required to be disbelieved.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/339/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
29. In view of re-examination of the evidence
and the analysis, keeping in mind the position of
law, as explained in the referred judgments, the
conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court
Judge becomes erroneous and contrary to law.
30. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of conviction and sentence dated
20.03.2003, passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Amreli in Sessions Case
No.41 of 2002 is set aside. The appellant is
acquitted from all the charges. Bail bond stands
discharged. Fine amount, if deposited be return
back to the appellant. Registry is directed to
send the Record and Proceedings back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/1
