Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 1181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, SANJEEV J.THAKER, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Dhansukhbhai Vinodrai Patel And Ors. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 898 Of 1998
Decided On : 10-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeals against Acquittal
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.378
Headnote
(B) Appeal - Scope and interference - Principle of non-interference in an order of acquittal unless the trial court’s reasoning is found to be perverse, contrary to material on record, or demonstrably unsustainable - Double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused in acquittal appeals - Appellate court should not substitute its view if a reasonable and plausible view has been taken by the trial court. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
An individual died while in custody following an apprehension by security personnel. The prosecution alleged that the death was a result of physical torture inflicted during the night of detention. The trial court acquitted the personnel involved, noting the failure of the prosecution to substantiate the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The state appealed against this acquittal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that medical evidence did not support the claim that the injuries were sufficient to cause death. Discrepancies in the testimony of various witnesses, coupled with the absence of independent verification of the alleged assault, suggested that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The trial court’s determination was deemed a reasonable view based on the available evidence.
Issues: Whether the acquittal of the state personnel for alleged death in custody was sustainable under law and whether the appellate court was justified in interfering with the trial court's finding.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court must maintain the principle of double presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals. Absent patent perversity, omission to consider material evidence, or legal infirmity in the trial court's judgment, the appellate court should refrain from substituting its own view for that of the trial court where a reasonable view of the evidence has been taken.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For The Appellant : Ms Megha Chitaliya, App
For The Respondent: Biren J Panchal, Jeet Y Rajyaguru, Mr Harshit S Tolia, Mr Jm Buddhbhatti
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context and factual background of the custodial death case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding trial court's evidentiary findings. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. critical analysis of weak evidence and failure to establish direct nexus. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. scope of appellate court interference in acquittal judgments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final confirmation of acquittal due to absence of perverse findings. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.08.1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavanagar, in Sessions Case No.215 of 1993, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the case concerns the custodial death of Jethabhai, son of the complainant, Sukhabhai Meghabhai Bharwad, which occurred between the night of 10.05.1991, and the morning of 11.05.1991, at Palitana. According to the complaint, Jethabhai was apprehended by a group of police personnel near Punjabi Dharamshala on Taleti Road without any apparent legal justification. Eyewitnesses reported that he was publicly assaulted with sticks and forcibly dragged towards the police station. It is alleged that the assault continued inside the police station throughout the night, resulting in severe injuries. Due to this custodial violence, Jethabhai died while in police custody. The complainant was informed of his death at around 8:00 AM the following morning, therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondents-accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.215 of 1993. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and also produced 23 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:
ORAL EVIDENCE
| No. | Witness Name / Designation | Exhibit No. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dr. Rameshkumar Vishwanath Rajyaguru | 15 |
| 2 | Witness Bhanushankar Harilal | 33 |
| 3 | Dr. Kalpeshbhai Bababhai Shah | 36 |
| 4 | Witness Dhaniben Sukhabhai | 75 |
| 5 | Witness Madhubhai Sukhabhai | 76 |
| 6 | Witness Ranabhai Polabhai | 77 |
| 7 | Witness Hirabhai Harsukhbhai | 78 |
| 8 | Head Constable Jetharambhai Vallabhbhai | 79 |
| 9 | P.I. (Police Inspector) Babubhai Virsingbhai Makwana | 83 |
| 10 | Panch Witness Bhagwanbhai Meghjibhai | 84 |
| 11 | Witness Kanubhai Lakshmanbhai | 89 |
| 12 | Witness Vinodbhai Pragjibhai | 90 |
| 13 | D.S.P. (Deputy Superintendent of Police) Shri Rupchand Bhoranmal Gurubani | 93 |
Documentary Evidence
| No. | Description of Documentary Evidence | Exhibit No. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Post-Mortem (P.M.) Report of deceased Jetha Sukha | 16 |
| 2 | F.S.L. (Forensic Science Laboratory) Analysis Report | 24 |
| 3 | F.S.L. Analysis Reports | 25 and 27 |
| 4 | X-rays | 23 to 30 |
| 5 | Xerox copy of the Police Employee Duty List | 31 |
| 6 | Doctor's certificate regarding five samples of the deceased's blood | 37 |
| 7 | Police Yadi (Police Memo/Note) | 38 |
| 8 | Form-B regarding blood samples | 39 |
| 9 | Analysis report of blood samples | 40 |
| 10 | Letter from the Divisional Police Officer | 41 |
| 11 | Panchnama of the place of incident | 44 |
| 12 | Panchnama of the seizure of physical evidence from the body of deceased Jetha Sukha | 45 |
| 13 | Inquest Form (Marnottar Form) | 46 |
| 14 | Panchnama of the scene of the crime | 47 |
| 15 | Panchnama of the scene of the crime | 48 |
| 16 | Arrest Panchnama | 49 |
| 17 | Arrest Panchnama | 50 |
| 18 | Panchnama of the recovery/seizure of the weapon used in the offense | 51 |
| 19 | P.M. (Post-Mortem) Report | 52 |
| 20 | Letter from the Divisional Police Officer regarding the | |
