[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Baba @ Pratapsing Savji Rajput on 17 April, 2026

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/886/1998                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

                                                                                                                        undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 886 of 1998


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO                                              Sd/-

                      and
                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER                                          Sd/-
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                             Yes           No
                                                                                                    ✔
                      ==========================================================
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                        Versus
                                         BABA @ PRATAPSING SAVJI RAJPUT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
                      BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
                      1,2,3,4,5
                      UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                      UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
                              and
                              HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                          Date : 17/04/2026

                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER)

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.05.1998, passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at

Palanpur, in Sessions Case No.18 of 1992, for the offences

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

punishable under Sections 302, 323, 426, 452, 147, 148 and

149 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State of

Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Section

378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the

Code") inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents - accused.

2. The present appeal is heard only with respect to the

offence against respondent no.4 in view of the fact that by

an order dated 10.04.2026, this Court has disposed of the

appeal qua respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 as infructuous, in

view of the fact that considering the report submitted by the

police officers Suigam Police Station, the certificate issued by

Sarpanch Rampura, Gram Panchayat, Taluka-Vav District-

Banaskantha and the report of Bhuraji Nagjiji-ASI which states that respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 have expired.

Therefore, the present appeal is heard only considering the

role of respondent no.4.

3. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the trial Court is that on 24.10.1990, in the village of

Rampura, Taluka Vav, a violent incident occurred involving

the complainant, Sarabhai Mahadevbhai Patni, and his

brother Punjabhai Narana. According to the testimony, the

witness's brother was sleeping at the fields when he was

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

confronted by a group of armed men, including Rajput

Pabubhai (alias Pratap Singh) and Savji, who arrived on a

tractor. The situation escalated quickly as the accused, armed

with a gun, an axe, a dhariyu (sharp blade), and sticks,

assaulted Punjabhai Narana; Pratap Singh reportedly struck

him with a gun butt while Savji hit him on the leg with a

heavy stick, causing him to collapse. The group, which also

included Rabari Guga Jaha and Rabari Nakha Choma,

proceeded to loot grocery sacks and property from the

premises, loading the stolen goods onto their tractor before

fleeing the scene. Following the arrival of concerned villagers

and the identification of the attackers. Therefore, the

complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused.

4. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-

sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the

offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively

triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate

committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to

be registered as Sessions Case No.18 of 1992. The charge

was framed against the accused person/s. The accused

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are

described in the impugned judgment as under:

ORAL EVIDENCE

Witness Exhibit Name of Witness Designation / Role No. No.

Karamshibhai

Mahadevbhai Thakariya

Pradhanji Kanji

Brahman

Panch Witness (Seizure

of Muddamal)

Panch Witness (Seizure

of Muddamal)

Panch Witness (Recovery

of Muddamal)

Panch Witness (Recovery

of Muddamal)

P.S.O. (Police Station

Officer)

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

Witness Exhibit Name of Witness Designation / Role No. No.

Ghanshyamsinh P.S.I. (Investigating

Chandansinh Gohil Officer)

Circle Inspector (Drafted

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Description of Document Exhibit No. No.

(2) List of Documents/Inventory (Suchipatara) 38

(3) Panchnama regarding seizure of weapons 14, 17

Panchnama of the incident at witness

Pradhanji Dhanji's flour mill

Panchnama regarding seizure of clothes from

the deceased's body

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

Description of Document Exhibit No. No.

Death Certificate / Certificate of Cause of

Death

Medical Certificate of witness Pradhanji

Khanji

Requisition/Note to the Executive Magistrate

for Inquest

Copy of the requisition sent to the Medical

Officer for Post-Mortem

Police Yadi (official note) for medical

treatment

Receipt of Muddamal (evidence items) sent to

F.S.L.

F.S.L. (Forensic Science Laboratory) analysis

report

(17) Copy of the Notification prohibiting weapons 45

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

Description of Document Exhibit No. No.

Letter written to the Mamlatdar for preparing

a map of the scene of offence

Original Map of the scene of the offense

prepared by Circle Inspector

(21) Map of the scene and its detailed explanation 57

6. After hearing the learned advocate for the

appellant and after analysis of evidence adduced by the

prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for

the offences for which the charge was framed, by holding

that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt.

7. Learned APP for the appellant - State has

pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court

through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before

the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial

Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and

perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in

acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial

Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the

contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the

accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that

the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It

is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen

that the evidence produced on record is reliable and

believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,

therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by

appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

8. Though served none appeared for the respondent

no.4.

9. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and

dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court :

9.1. If the complaint produced vide Exhibit-37 is taken into

consideration, the said complaint states that the nephew of

the complainant Punja Narana was sleeping in the house of

the complainant at around 12.00 a.m., Kanji Pradhanji who

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

was the owner of the flourmill started shouting and at that

time, the complainant was sleeping on first floor of his

premises and his nephew Punja Narana was sleeping in the

osri, at that time, the complainant told the deceased Punja

Narana to check as to what was the commotion near the

flour mill. Thereafter Punja Narana gets up from his sleep

and goes and opens the door and the complainant sees from

the window of the first floor that accused no.1 holding a gun

caught hold of Punja Narana from his chest and asked him

the whereabouts of the complainant and so saying started

assaulting the Punja Narana with fist at the chest of

deceased Punja Narana and at that time Punja Narana

states that he did not know where complainant was and

asked him as to why they were assaulting him. At that time,

the accused no.2- Savji Khemaji had a stick in his hand came running from the tractor and hit deceased Punja

Narana on the head with the said stick and Punja Narana

fell down as he was hit by stick on his head at that time.

Accused no.3 had an axe in his hand and accused no.4 Guga

Jahan had a stick and an iron scissor and accused no.5 had

a dhariya and a wooden stick in his hand and all started

assaulting the deceased Punja Narana and accused no.4

stated that Punja Narana has died and thereafter all the five

accused ran away in their tractor and hearing the entire

commotion Rama Jiva Patel came and was informed about

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

the incident and on the next date the complaint was filed.

The prosecution has examined Parambhai Mahadevbhai the

complainant and the alleged eye witness to the offence vide

exhibit 10 as P.W.1. In his deposition he has stated that

there was a commotion near the flour mill of Pradhanji

Kanaji and Pradhanji Kanaji was shouting and at paragraph

no.12 of his cross-examination he has stated that accused

no.1 had not used the gun, with respect to the offense

against respondent no.4, he has stated that after accused

no.1 was hit by a stick, he fell down and it is only after

Punja Narana fell down, that accused nos.3, 4 and 5 had

come and thereafter all the five started assaulting the

deceased Punja Narana. At paragraph no.14, the said witness

states that accused no.4 had assaulted the deceased Punja

Narana with stick on the right side of the body of the deceased and accused no.4 had not used the scissor which

was brought by him.

9.2. The prosecution has thereafter examined P.W.2 vide

Exhibit 11, Pradhanji Kanji who was owner of the flour mill

who has turned hostile and has not supported the case of

the prosecution. The case of the complainant was that as the

said witness Pradhanji Kanji started shouting, the

complainant informed the deceased Punja Narana to go and

check what the commotion was but if the evidence of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

said witness, Kanji Pradhanji is taken into consideration, he

states that when he was sleeping at his flour mill, somebody

had come and slept him and thereafter he fell unconscious,

therefore the question of him shouting and the complainant's

informing Punja Narana to check as to what the commotion

was has not been proved by the prosecution.

9.3. The prosecution has thereafter examined Ramabhai

Jivabhai as P.W.3 vide Exhibit 12. He was not present at

the time of the incident and the said incident was

informed to him by the complainant.

9.4. The prosecution has thereafter examined Punjaji at

Exhibit 13 as P.W.4, who was the panch witness of the

panchnama of the recovery of Muddamal which is produced

vide exhibit 14 and the other witness of the Muddamal recovery panchnama Rupsinhji Vastabhai has been

examined as P.W.15. Both have turned hostile and have

not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution

has thereafter examined Jemalsinh Chamansinh vide

exhibit-16, who was the panch witness to the panchnama

of the recovery of the muddamal which is produced vide

exhibit-17. The said witness has not supported the case of

the prosecution and has turned hostile.

9.5. The other witness of the said panchnama Rajaji Virji

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

has been examined as P.W.7 vide exhibit 18 who is the

panch witness of the stick that was recovered from

accused no.2.

9.6. The Panchnama of the place of offence is produced

vide Exhibit 20, wherein it has been stated that the blood

stains were found outside the house of the complainant.

The prosecution has also produced the inquest panchnama

vide Exhibit 21. The prosecution has examined Dr.

Arunbhai Harjibhai as PW-8 vide Exh-25, he was the

Medical Officer at Suigam Preliminary Health Centre, who

had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Punjabhai

Narana, and the post-mortem report is produced vide

Exhibit 26, and as per said post-mortem report, the cause

of death was due to brain haemorrhage due to head injury

homicide by heavy-edged weapons.

9.7. The prosecution has examined the Police Sub-Inspector

Chhog Singh Kalyan Singh as PW-9 vide Exhibit 29. The

prosecution has examined ASI, the Investigating Officer

Ghanshyambhai Chandan Singh vide Exhibit 36. The map

showing the place of offence is produced by the witness

vide Exhibit 55, Tej Singh Ratarji.

9.8. If the entire case of the prosecution is considered with

respect to the offence and respondent no.4, the evidence on

record states that the deceased had died because of brain

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

haemorrhage due to head injury homicide by heavy-edged

weapons and even in the oral evidence, the complainant

himself has stated that after the deceased was hit on the

head by Accused no. 1 and 2, Accused no. 3, 4 and 5

came at the place of alleged offence, and the deceased was

hit by Accused no. 4 on the right-hand side of his body,

and the Accused no.4 had not used a scissor, which was

alleged to have been brought by the said accused. The

prosecution has also not been able to prove the place of

offence where the deceased was assaulted in view of the

fact that as per Exhibit 20, the blood stains were found

outside the house of the complainant, and therefore, the

only eyewitness to the incident which was the complainant

himself has stated that he had seen that the accused were

assaulting the deceased from the first floor portion of window, and if the blood stains were found outside the

house, it transpires that the incident had taken place

outside the house, and the prosecution has not been able

to prove as to the exact place where the offence had

taken place.

9.9. Moreover, the prosecution has also not been able to

prove the motive in view of the fact that the complainant

himself states that the deceased was asked the

whereabouts of the complainant, and there was no enmity

which has been proved by the prosecution between the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

accused and the complainant. Moreover, the entire incident

as stated by the complainant is because of commotion at

the flourmill and the owner of the flourmill, Karsan

Karamsinh has himself stated that after being hit on his

face, he was unconscious and therefore, there was no

question of any commotion at the flourmill, and therefore,

the question of complainant sending the deceased to check

what the commotion was has not been proved by the

prosecution. Moreover, it also transpires from the medical

evidence that the cause of death because of heavy edged

weapon, and the prosecution has not been able to prove as

to which of the accused had assaulted the complainant on

the head.

9.10. In view of the fact that the complainant himself also

does not state that Accused No. 4 had assaulted the complainant by hitting the stick on his head.

10. Further, learned advocate for the appellant is not

in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view

in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is

vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is

perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material

evidence on record. In above view of the matter, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the Court below was

completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence

that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then

also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by

reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of

the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on

record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably

unsustainable. (Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat -

(1996) 9 SCC 225). In the instant case, the learned APP has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings

recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to

material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or

demonstrably unsustainable.

12. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as

under:

"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished,

the High Court should not disturb the order of

acquittal."

13. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of

Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial

Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.

It is further observed that High Court's interference in such

appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by

the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court

should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have

taken a different view.

14. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of

Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has observed 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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",






                                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.A/886/1998                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

                                                                                                                            undefined




                                                "good       and       sufficient         grounds",          "very
                                                strong             circumstances",                   "distorted

conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

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."

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in

the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s

State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:

"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/886/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026

undefined

of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no case is made out

to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of

acquittal. Further, on our careful re-appreciation of the entire

evidence, we found that there is no infirmity or irregularity

in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and

under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly