State Of Gujarat vs Devubha Karnubhai Vaghela on 21 February, 2026

Author: Nikhil S. Kariel

Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/1128/2003                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                            R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1128 of 2003


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL                                   Sd/-

                       and
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT                                   Sd/-

                       ==================================================

                                      Approved for Reporting                   Yes           No
                                                                                             ✓
                       =============================================
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                              Versus
                                                DEVUBHA KARNUBHAI VAGHELA & ANR.
                       ==================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. J.K.SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       RAHUL SHARMA(8276) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       SUBODH KUMUD(10133) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       ==================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
                                and
                                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                           Date : 21/02/2026

                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL)

[1] Heard learned APP Mr. J.K.Shah for the appellant - State as also learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma for the respondents

- original accused.

[2] By way of this appeal, under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1128/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026

undefined

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant - State has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.06.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.9 of 2003, whereby respondents have been acquitted.

[3] Learned APP would submit that the Sessions Case had emanated from an FIR registered on 05.11.2002, at Patdi Police Station being C.R.No.I-50 of 2002, inter alia, alleging that the respondents herein and the deceased as well as the injured victim were playing cards at Village- - Visavadi and whereas, during the course of playing cards, the parties had an altercation with each other and whereas, respondents herein had taken knives and respondent No.1 had inflicted knife blows on the deceased, whereas respondent No.2 is alleged to have inflicted knife blows on the injured victim.

[3.1] Learned APP would submit that the deceased and the injured victim were taken by the complainant, who happened to be the elder brother of the deceased, initially to C.H.C Patdi and whereas, the history recorded by the treating doctor reflected that the injured victim had narrated the history of being stabbed by the opposite side. It is submitted by learned APP that both the deceased and the injured person had been thereafter taken to one Gandhi Hospital, Surendranagar and whereas, while deceased Ambaram had been brought dead, as far as injured victim Popat Jesang is concerned, as per the history, he was inflicted stab wounds by respondent No.2 herein.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1128/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026

undefined

[3.2] Learned APP would submit that while the history clearly reflects that the victims i.e. the deceased and the injured victim both had narrated history of being inflicted knife wounds by the opposite side i.e. respondents herein and whereas, there was enough material before the learned Sessions Court, inasmuch as, the weapons, with which the injuries were inflicted, were recovered at the instance of the accused themselves, yet, the learned Sessions Court not having convicted the respondents herein, the appeal is necessitated.

[3.3] Learned APP would submit that considering the evidence on record, this Court may set aside the order of acquittal.

[4] On the other hand, the present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma appearing for the respondents. Learned advocate would submit that the learned Sessions Court has not committed any error whatsoever, more particularly, learned advocate submitting that the witnesses including the injured witness as well as the complainant himself, had turned hostile and whereas, there was no material before the learned Sessions Court on the basis of which, the learned Sessions Court could have come to the conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondents had committed the act in question.

[4.1] Learned advocate would submit that no error having been committed by the learned Trial Court, this Court may not reverse the order of acquittal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1128/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026

undefined

[5] Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents including the record of proceedings and decision of the learned Trial Court.

[6] To this Court, it would appear that the learned Trial Court, based upon the evidence led before it, could not have returned any findings except the finding of acquittal, since as pointed out by the learned advocate on behalf of the respondents that the witness i.e. injured victim, who had sustained stab wound during the course of altercation and the complainant who was present on the spot and who had brought the deceased as well as injured victim to the hospital, both had turned hostile.

[7] We have perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Court and whereas, we have noticed the fact of learned Sessions Court having clearly discussed as regards material inconsistencies in the evidence produced. Learned Sessions Court has recorded that at three different places, the deceased and the injured victim had given three different versions of the incident and whereas, from the varying version, it could not be clear as to whether the respondents i.e. accused had committed the act in question or whether the same had been committed by any of the accused or it had been committed by the accused at all.

[8] We have also noticed the findings of the learned Sessions Court that the material witnesses i.e. the complainant, who was present on the spot and who had brought the victim to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1128/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026

undefined

hospital for treatment first to the CHC and then to the Gandhi Hospital, who was also happened to be the elder brother of the deceased victim, had turned hostile. We have also noticed the findings that the injured victim i.e. person, who had also received stab wound in the course of the transaction, had also turned hostile.

[9] Having considered the said aspect, though it appears that there has been a recovery at the instance of the respondents themselves, yet we are in agreement with the observations of the learned Sessions Court that merely on the basis of recovery, without any other material, a finding of conviction could not be recorded.

[10] We have also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles which have to be considered when the Appellate Court is looking into the decision of the acquittal.

[11] Paragraph - 41 of the decision, being relevant for the said purpose, is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.

"41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:

41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1128/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2026

undefined

41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and

41.3. 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."

(Emphasis Supplied)

[12] Having considered the aforesaid principles, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we find that neither does the judgment of acquittal suffers from any patent perversity nor does it appear to us that the same is based on a misreading of any material evidence or on the basis of an omission to consider any material evidence. We are also of the view that there are no two views possible, and whereas the only the view, which is possible, is consistent with the fact that the guilt of the accused is not possible to be recorded from the evidence available.

[13] Considering such a position, more particularly, since almost a quarter of century has passed since the order of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere with the said decision.

[14] Hence, the present acquittal appeal is disposed of as dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be transmitted back to the concerned Trial Court.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Lalji Desai