Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. R. Mengdey, Maulik J.Shelat, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Batmunadan Mrugesh Pillai – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1354 of 2004
Decided On : 19-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.302
Headnote
(B) Acquittal appeals - In appeals against acquittal, courts can reappreciate evidence - Principle of double presumption in favor of the accused must be maintained unless error is shown in Trial Court's finding. (Paras 14, 41)
Facts of the case:
The deceased's accidental death was initially proclaimed as such; however, a post-mortem revealed strangulation as cause of death. The accused was acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence linking him to the homicide. (Paras 3-6)
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's findings were upheld as there was no credible evidence against the accused, and the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required for conviction. (Paras 18-19)
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to overturn the acquittal; whether the Trial Court misapprehended the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased. (Paras 10, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that without compelling evidence connecting the accused to the crime, the acquittal stands firm, respecting the presumption of innocence and the substantial burden of proof on the prosecution. (Para 41)
Result: Appeal dismissed; Trial Court’s order of acquittal confirmed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT :
MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgement and order dated 19th February 2004 passed by the Sessions Court, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2003. By way of the impugned judgement and order, the accused has been acquitted under Section-302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) by the Trial Court.
2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under:
3. The alleged incident took place on 1st March 2003 in afternoon hours in the house of the first informant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased Parmeshwariben, wherein he has disclosed that the deceased sustained an accidental injury from falling in the house while doing domestic work, she sustained injuries and she was taken to the hospital at about 16:00 hours on 1st March 2003, itself and the doctor concerned declared her dead at about 16:30 hours.
4. The police appears to have been informed about the accidental death as per Section-174 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), whereby, Accident Case No.24 of 2003 has been registered by the City B-Division Police Station, Jamnagar City. It is the further case of the prosecution that during the investigation and after recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, it came to light that there was a quarrel between the first informant and the deceased on 1st March 2003 at around 13:30 hours, but in such statements were not reveal any such fact that she sustained any accidental injury due to giddiness.
5. Furthermore, the post-mortem report was received by the police which confirmed the fact that there was a strangulation mark on her neck and due to which, she succumbed to such bodily injury and died due to asphyxia on account of ligature strangulation.
6. The police after completion of investigation filed chargesheet against accused under section-302 of IPC and JMFC, Jamnagar committed the case to be tried as Session Case.
7. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence:
Oral Evidences of Prosecution
| Sr. No. | Name and Particulars | Exh. |
| 1. | Nilesh Bijalbhai | 13 |
| 2. | Pravinbhai Devshibhai Jadav | 14 |
| 3. | Jayesh Amanbhai | 15 |
| 4. | Vijyaben Bijalbhai | 17 |
| 5. | Gangaben Pandebhai | 18 |
| 6. | Karnagar Dureswami Pillai | 20 |
| 7. | Chidambaram Tan Pillai | 22 |
| 8. | Dr. R. G. Datta | 7 |
| 9. | Aadam Ibrahim Sama | 47 |
| 10. | Vipul Pravinbhai Parmar | 48 |
| 11. | Shivraj Tangvel | 49 |
| 12. | Bijal Gordhan Sitapara | 50 |
| 13. | Seleyan Tangayan | 51 |
| 14. | Dharmendrasinh Lakhubha Zala | 52 |
| 15. | Jayendrasinh Jorubha Jadeja | 56 |
Documentary Evidences of Prosecution
| Sr. No. | Name and Particulars | Exh. |
| 1. | Original complaint | 54 |
| 2. | Letter informing the CMO about the arrival of the deceased's body | 24 |
| 3. | Letter to the Executive Magistrate regarding the inquest of the deceased's body | 25 |
| 4. | Letter to C.T.B. regarding the deceased's body | 26 |
| 5. | Inquest Panchnama | 9 |
| 6. | Police report to be sent to the Civil Surgeon along with the body sent for postmortem examination | 10 |
| 7. | Letter regarding post-mortem examination of the deceased | 8 |
| 8. | Letter for taking blood sample of deceased | 12 |
| 9. | Post mortem report | 11 |
| 10. | Letter for taking blood sample of the accused | 27 |
| 11. | Regarding the consent of accused consent for blood sample | 28 |
| 12. | Statement of Mrugesh Pillai | 29 |
| 13. | The PSI's report for filing the Accidental Death (AD) entry | 30 |
| 14. | Panchnama of scene of offence | 53 |
| 15. | Report made by the PSO to register a case against the accused | 31 |
| 16. | Copy of the station diary entry dated 2/3/03 | 32 |
| 17. | Letter from PSI to the Superintendent of Police regarding sending an FSL officer to the scene of incident | 33 |
| 18. | Report of Mobile Laboratory | 34 |
| 19. | Letter to the Deputy Director of F.S.L. Junagadh for the examination of evidence | 35 |
| 20. | Dispatch record of muddamal sent for examination | 36 |
| 21. | Certificate of Power of Attorney | 37 |
| 22. | Acknowledgment of receipt of muddamal | 38 |
| 23. | Acknowledgement of receipt of analysis report from Deputy Director, FSL | 39 |
| 24. | Acknowledgement list for receiving the biology report | |
