preparing map of the place of offence.
6 Extract of necessary portion of station diary. 25
matchstick box.
of incident where there are reddish stains
on the plastering of cowdung.
place of incident.
the FSL.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
20 Forwarding letter by FSL. 69 & 72
21 FSL report. 70 & 73
23 Application of Shankuben dated 25.03.1998. 74
24 Affidavit of Dodiya Naranbhai Mulabhai. 75
25 Affidavit of Dodiya Pashiben Naranbhai. 76
26 Affidavit of Dodiya Pashabhai Naranbhai 77
27 Affidavit of Dodiya Shivabhai Naranbhai 78
28 Affidavit of Dodiya Shantiben Naranbhai 79
2.5. After hearing the parties and upon appreciation of the
aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court arrived at the
conclusion that none of the charges levelled against
the accused have been proved beyond doubt; thus, it
has acquitted the accused from the charges.
3. We have heard the learned Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State
and Mr.J.M.Buddhbhatti, learned advocate for the
respondent at length, who have taken us through
various oral evidence as well as documentary
evidence on record and so also the reasons assigned
by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused. We
have also independently examined and reappreciated
the evidence of prosecution including its witnesses.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
4. Mr.Pandya, learned APP has made following
submissions in support of the appeal:
4.1. The Trial Court has committed a grave error in
acquitting the accused from a heinous crime, as due
to his act, one innocent victim died.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
4.2. The Trial Court has completely overlooked the
evidence of the prosecution, more particularly the
father of the victim, who happens to be the
complainant and so also the evidence of real brother
of the victim. Both these witnesses have supported
the case of the prosecution, thereby proved that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty and in fact, killed
by the accused.
4.3. The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of
the investigating officer, who has not only proved the
panchnama but also proved the guilt of the accused.
The bloodstains were found on the clothes of the
accused recovered at his instance and the very
bloodstains were also found on the clothes of the
victim recovered during the investigation.
4.4. The Trial Court has completely ignored the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL) report and has not properly
appreciated the evidence of the doctor who performed
the postmortem, who has confirmed the fact that the
cause of death was due to burn injuries.
4.5. Making the above submissions, Mr.Pandya, learned
APP would humbly request this Court to allow the
appeal. No other and further submissions were made
by the learned APP.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT:
5. Per contra, Mr.J.M.Buddhbhatti, learned advocate for
the respondent-accused, has vehemently opposed this
appeal, making the following submissions:
5.1. The Trial Court has neither committed any error nor
is there any scope of interference by this Court and as
such, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court is just and proper.
5.2. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond any doubt
that the accused had killed the victim at her
matrimonial home. There is no direct evidence
involving the accused in the commission of the crime.
5.3. As per the deposition of Dr. Girishbhai Jhala (PW-20),
it is proved that the internal injuries sustained by the
victim could not have been inflicted by a stick blow.
There are no external injuries found on the body of
the victim. Rather, the internal injuries found in the
private parts of the victim's body could have been
sustained due to a fall. The presence of kerosene was
not found either on the body of the victim or in the
samples taken during the postmortem.
5.4. As per the aforesaid evidence of the doctor, it could
not be proved as to whether the victim committed
suicide or it was a homicidal death. Since the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
prosecution has failed to prove that the death of the
victim was a homicidal one, this Court should not
interfere in the appeal.
5.5. None of the panchas have supported the case of the
prosecution, including the real brother of the
complainant, who happens to be the uncle of the
victim, namely Govabhai (PW-17). Once the recovery
panchnama is not proved on record and undisputedly
the blood sample of the accused was not collected and
verified and as admitted by Dr.Girishbhai (PW-20)
that there was no blood found on the body of the
victim for collection, merely because blood group 'A'
was found on the clothes recovered by the police, it
cannot prove the involvement of the accused.
5.6. The investigating officer has failed to record any
statements of neighbours or other nearby relatives
residing in the same village. The evidence of the
complainant and his son are not believable, as it is
unnatural that if the victim was subjected to cruelty
for a long time as alleged, then this fact was not
disclosed to their nearby family members residing in
the same village where the victim was residing with
the accused. Moreover, the allegation of cruelty is not
proved and in the absence of any charge framed
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, no
presumption can be drawn against the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
5.7. Making the above submissions, Mr.Buddhbhatti,
learned advocate for the accused, would request this
Court to dismiss the present appeal.
ANALYSIS:
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon re-appreciation of the evidence
made available on record of the case and even after
minutely perusing the record and proceedings, we are
unable to accept the submissions made by the learned
APP for the following reasons:
6.1. Before adverting to the issue and assigning our
reasons, we would like to first refer to and rely upon
the recent decision of the Honourable Apex Court,
wherein the scope and interference of this Court in an
acquittal appeal is succinctly discussed. The
Honourable Apex Court in the case of Constable 907
Surendra Singh and another V/s. State of
Uttarakhand - (2025) 5 SCC 433, observed and
held as follows:
"23. Recently, in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of
Karnataka [Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of
Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 535] , a
Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R.
Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with
regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against
acquittal. It was observed thus : (SCC pp. 163-64, paras 38-
41)
"38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles
laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for
challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial
court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh
Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC
(Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field
after considering various earlier judgments and held as
below : (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29)
'29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court
culled out the following general principles regarding
the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal in the following
words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri)
325] , SCC p. 432, para 42)
"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", "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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the
trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate court should not disturb the finding of
acquittal recorded by the trial court." '
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D.
Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3
SCC (Cri) 748] , this Court summarised the principles
governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing
with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as
follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8)
'8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral
and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is
required to consider whether the view taken by the
trial court is a possible view which could have been
taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the
ground that another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused
was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible.'
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;
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to
consider material evidence on record; and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
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)
7. Now, adverting to the issue to be examined by this
Court, it is not in dispute between the parties that the
marriage of the victim with the accused was of five years
and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a boy
who was aged about 2 years at the time of the incident,
i.e., 31.12.1998. The FIR was registered by the father of
the victim on the next day of the incident, alleging that
the victim was subjected to cruelty not only by the
accused but also by his family members. For reasons
best known to the complainant and family members, so
far as the allegations levelled against the family
members of the accused are concerned, they have been
withdrawn and it appears that no chargesheet was filed
against the other members of the family of the accused,
i.e., father-in-law, mother-in-law, etc. Later on, after
recording the evidence of the complainant, who was
examined as PW-8, the learned APP submitted an
application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to implicate
the aforesaid family members of the accused, but the
said application filed below Exhibit 37 came to be
rejected by the Trial Court vide its order dated
24.08.2000; learned APP Mr.Pandya, during the course
of his arguments, is unable to point out from the record
that said order was challenged by the prosecution before
this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
8. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon
circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye-witness
who had seen the alleged incident of setting the victim
ablaze. None of the panchas, be it of the inquest or the
recovery, have supported the case of the prosecution, as
they have turned hostile. The doctor who performed the
postmortem, namely Dr. Girishbhai Jhala (PW-20), was
examined by the prosecution. The doctor has
categorically admitted in his deposition that the cause of
death was due to burn injuries. There are no external
injuries found on the body of the victim. The internal
injuries found in private part of the victim's body, as
recorded in Column 15 of the postmortem report, could
not have been inflicted by the use of a stick. The doctor
has admitted in his cross-examination that even after
performing the postmortem, it cannot be ascertained
whether the victim had committed suicide or it was a
homicidal death. As per the postmortem, there was no
burn injuries found on the both palms and legs and the
head, including the backside of the head. The Trial Court
has correctly appreciated the said evidence when it
arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
prove that the victim was subjected to physical injury
prior to death and had there been a case of setting the
victim ablaze, the burn injuries would have been found
on her palms and legs, which is ostensibly missing.
Rather, considering the aforesaid facts, one can leads to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
the presumption that the victim might have committed
suicide.
9. So far as the evidence of the complainant, who happens
to be the father of the victim examined at PW-8, though
he tried to prove the allegation, but there are apparent
contradictions and unnatural conduct that can be
noticed in his evidence. PW-8 has deposed that one day
prior to the date of the incident, he went to the
matrimonial village of the victim as he was called by his
brother, who in fact has not supported such version, who
was also examined by the prosecution as PW-17.
Nonetheless, if PW-8 in fact visited the victim's
matrimonial village on day prior to incident and she was
subjected to cruelty since long, then as the natural
conduct of a father, he would have surely visited the
victim's matrimonial home to get the details of her well-
being. Furthermore, PW-8 has also admitted in his cross-
examination that the factum of cruelty inflicted by the
accused upon the victim was never shared with any
other relatives of PW-8 who are residing in the same
village, i.e., the matrimonial village. Again, this creates
doubt in the prudent mind. Normally, in a society where
the victim was living in a village, if she was subjected to
cruelty, at least the near relatives of the victim who are
living in the same village would know such a fact. It is
further admitted by PW-8 in his evidence that prior to
the date of the incident, at least it was not even in his
knowledge that at any given point of time the victim or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
his family members had registered any formal complaint
against the accused or his family members for such
cruelty.
10. Likewise, the evidence of the brother of the victim,
namely Shivabhai (PW-18), is also not trustworthy. PW-
18 has tried to improvise the case of the prosecution or
rather made wild allegations against one Khengarbhai
and Vashrambhai, who according to this witness are the
real culprits of the murder of the victim. However, upon
appreciation of the evidence of PW-18, it is neither
convincing nor reliable for the reason that there are
certain statements which have not been given before the
police, yet were deposed before the trial Court in his
evidence. It is the very unnatural conduct of PW-18, as
on one hand he was making allegations against said
Khengarbhai and Vashrambhai about their involvement
in the commission of the crime and on the other hand,
he admitted in his deposition that when both these
persons visited his home to ask for the well-being of his
father after his cataract operation, at that time he had
offered them lunch including sweets. It is admitted by
PW-18 that Khengarbhai happens to be his brother-in-
law. Ordinarily, if there was any enmity between the
parties on any issue, at least there is no reason for one
side to visit the house of the other side and to have a
lunch offered by other side. The other allegations
levelled by PW-18 in support of the theory of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
prosecution is not found convincing in the absence of
any corroborative evidence.
11. Furthermore, other relatives who have been examined
by the prosecution are not in a position to substantiate
and prove the case of the prosecution beyond doubt;
rather, the real uncle of the victim, examined as PW-17,
who is residing in the matrimonial village of the victim,
has not supported the case of the prosecution, including
not supporting the story of the complainant who
happens to be his brother about his visiting one day
prior to the incident. PW-17 was also not aware about
any cruelty meted out to the victim by the accused.
12. The investigating officer, though submitted the
chargesheet was unable to lead the case of the
prosecution further as there are so many shortcomings
in the investigation, including the fact that no blood
sample of the accused was taken for examination,
whereby it could have been confirmed that the
bloodstains found on the clothes of the victim is of the
accused. Even the investigating officer has not narrated
entire panchnama/inquest panchnama in his deposition,
especially when the panchas have turned hostile. The
evidence of the investigating officer has not even proved
that the victim was subjected to cruelty by the accused
and his family members. In fact, the prosecution has
failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence on
record to substantiate the allegation of cruelty at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/177/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
instance of the accused and/or his family members.
Thus, the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code is also not proved beyond doubt.
13. Thus, upon overall re-appreciation of the evidence by us,
and considering the ratio laid down by the Honourable
Apex Court in the aforesaid referred case, we are of the
considered view that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused
by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons, this appeal is found
meritless and is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently,
the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court is
hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand
cancelled.
15. The Record and proceedings shall be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J)
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
