Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13520
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
S.H. Vora, J
State of Gujarat v. Aher Devshi Ranmal
Criminal Appeal | S.C. No. 84 of 1992
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. C.M. Shah
For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Lakhani
Prosecution’s failure to prove charges leads to upheld acquittal; principles of self-defence recognized in mutual assault scenario.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 149, 302, 304, 324, 326 - Appeal against acquittal - Prosecution failed to substantiate charges convincingly as witnesses contradicted their statements regarding injuries sustained by accused - Principles of self-defence discussed. (Paras 1, 3, 23, 28).
(B) Acquittal - Rationale - High Court must respect trial court’s findings unless proven perverse - Acquitted due to insufficient evidence on prosecution’s side, maintained on appeal. (Paras 24, 25).
Facts of the case:
Appeal pertains to acquitted original accused of grievous assault leading to murder stemming from a land dispute. Key witnesses provided contradictory testimony regarding assault and injuries sustained by both sides.
Findings of Court:
Prosecution failed to present a credible case; the trial court’s acquittal based on lack of evidence is upheld.
Issues: Whether the evidence supported conviction under IPC sections cited.
Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution's suppression of facts and inconsistent witness testimonies undermine their case; the right of self-defence was pertinent based on evidence of mutual aggression.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal and initial court findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments supporting prosecution's position on witness testimonies. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. discussion on acquittal basis and witness reliability. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 4. principles of self-defence and its relevance to the case. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. final decision emphasizing trial court's findings. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 28) |
1. The present appeal is confined to the original accused No.2 - Ahir Devshi Ranmal, accused No.3 - Ahir Malde Ranmal and accused No.4 - Ahir Meraman Naran, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. The present appeal is abated so far as rest of the original accused Nos.6 to 8, respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein, are concerned.
2. The present appeal filed under S.378(1)((3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special Case No.84 of 1992.
3. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge at Exh.6 and the complaint at Exh.94, registered by the complainant - P.W.6 is that on 24.07.1992, the accused, eight in number had come with a tractor armed with various weapons like scythe, iron rods and sticks assaulted the complainant and the other injured witnesses due to some land dispute. The charge for the offences punishable under S.447, S.324, S.326, S.337, S.302 read with S.149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') were framed against the accused persons.
4. At the end of the trial, the trial Court has convicted the original accused Nos.1 and 5 under the provisions of S.304 Part - 1 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10, 000/-. The trial Court acquitted them for other charges levelled against them and also acquitted the accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 for all the charges vide judgment and order dated 31.01.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special Case No.84 of 1992. The said acquittal has given rise to the present appeal filed under S.378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah, at the outset, while referring to the evidence of the complainant P.W.6 - Ranmal Raide has submitted that the complainant in his FIR as well as before the trial Court has categorically described the role played by the present accused i.e. the accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in the assault. She has submitted that the accused No.3 had given a blow of wooden bat on the face of the complainant. For the other accused, she has submitted they were all present on the tractor and had arrived with other co - accused on the day of the incident at the field of the complainant and on refusing him not to take the tractor from that way, all the accused had attacked them and they suffered serious injuries.
6. Learned APP Ms. Shah has also referred to the evidence of the injured eye witness P.W.9 - Haja Jiva at Exh.66 and has submitted that he has also reiterated the manner in which they were assaulted by the accused. She has submitted that the assault on this witness was so grievous that he felt unconscious and he was thereafter referred to the Hospital.
7. Learned APP has also referred to the medical evidence to the Doctor Vinaykant Premjibhai Chawda, P.W.2, examined at Exh.36 and another Doctor Navinchandra Kanjibhai Haria, P.W.3, examined at Exh.45, who has specifically narrated the injuries suffered on the complainant and the other injured witnesses. She has submitted that the trial Court ought to have convicted all the accused by taking the aid of S.149 of the IPC. She has also referred to another injured witnesses P.W.9 - Haja Jiva, who has been examined at Exh.66 and an eye witness P.W.10 - Devabhai Maldebhai, who has been examined at Exh.67.
8. While referring to the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.15 - Jaydevsinh Jaywantsinh Jadeja, who has been examined at Exh.106, she has submitted that his evidence categor
