Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 2057

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, Maulik J.Shelat, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Bharta Keshva Rathod & Ors. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 1997
Decided On : 15-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Hardik Dave, Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent: Ms Shubha B Tripathi

The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for clear evidence of guilt in criminal cases.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused for offences under Sections 302, 294 and 114 IPC due to insufficient evidence - The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for clear evidence of guilt. (Paras 1, 11, 12)

(B) Acquittal - The appellate court must be slow to disturb a trial court's acquittal unless it is perverse or unsustainable in law - The court reiterated that if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the one favoring the accused should be adopted. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the deceased over a dispute, leading to his death. Witnesses turned hostile, and the trial court found the evidence insufficient to prove guilt.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court confirmed the trial court's acquittal, stating no error was committed in the judgment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's judgment was not perverse, and the presumption of innocence must be upheld unless clear evidence of guilt is established.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 26.03.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1996. By the judgment under challenge, the trial court has acquitted the respondents – accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in the First Information Report is that on 11.09.1995 at around 1700 hours deceased namely Nanabhai Dalsingbhai Rathod was sitting outside his residence. At that point of time, all four accused persons with an intention to commit murder arrived at the house of the deceased and started abusing him about the construction of the wall near the house of the deceased. It is alleged that accused no. 1 and accused no.2 gave kick and fist blows to the deceased with an intention and knowledge that such an act would cause death of deceased. It is also alleged that accused no. 3 & 4 arrived and started beating the deceased.

2.1 Pursuant to the said incident, a First Information Report was lodged with Garbada Police Station, Panchmahals for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 294 and 114 IPC vide I-C.R. No. 80 of 1995. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Panchnamas were drawn including the panchnama of the scene of offence. Post Mortem report was prepared and the accused were chargesheeted.

2.2 On committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the learned Judge framed charge at Ex. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty. Seven prosecution witnesses were examined and documentary evidence, 10 in number were placed for consideration. They are as under:

Oral Evidences

Sr. No.	Ex. No.	Name of Witness	Nature of Witness	Remarks
1.	8	Bachubhai Dalsingbhai	Eye Witness	Hostile
2.	9	Nathiben Manabhai	Eye Witness
3.	10	Vashliben Kaliyabhai	Eye Witness
4.	11	Ditabhai Javabhai	Eye Witness	Hostile
5.	16	Bhaliya Kachara	Eye Witness	Hostile
6.	17	Dr. Babulal Badriprasad	Medical Officer
7.	23	Hasmukhlal Arjanbhai Vadiya	Investigating Officer

Documentary Evidences

Sr.No.	Ex. No.	Name of Witness	Remarks
1.	12	Inquest Panchnama
2.	13	Panchnama of place of incident
3.	14	Panchnama of house of the Accused
4.	15	Panchnama of recovery of the cloths of the deceased
5.	19	Postmortem note
6.	20	Postmortem certificate
7.	21	Medical Certificate of PW 2 - Nathiben Manabhai
8.	22	Medical Certificate of PW 1 Bachubhai Dalsingbhai
9.	24	Complaint of Bachubhai Dalsingbhai
10.	25	Police Yadi for postmortem examination

2.3 On examination of the complainant, eye witnesses, medical officer, police witnesses and after recording the 313 statement of the accused, the trial court after evaluating the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused. It thereby recorded acquittal.

3. We have independently examined the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and assessed the evidence. What we note is that P.W. 1 Bachubhai Dalsingbhai – the brother of the deceased turned hostile. The other two eye witnesses namely Ditabhai Javabhai and Bhaliya Kachra who were neighbours and eye witnesses to the incident also turned hostile.

4. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the learned trial court committed an error in not appreciating the veracity and genuineness of the deposition of the two eye witnesses Nathib