In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court cannot substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the judgment is perverse, palpably wrong, or ignores material evidence, as the order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.05.1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Sessions Case No.18 of 1992, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 426, 452, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents – accused.

2. The present appeal is heard only with respect to the offence against respondent no.4 in view of the fact that by an order dated 10.04.2026, this Court has disposed of the appeal qua respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 as infructuous, in view of the fact that considering the report submitted by the police officers Suigam Police Station, the certificate issued by Sarpanch Rampura, Gram Panchayat, Taluka-Vav District Banaskantha and the report of Bhuraji Nagjiji-ASI which states that respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 have expired. Therefore, the present appeal is heard only considering the role of respondent no.4.

3. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that on 24.10.1990, in the village of Rampura, Taluka Vav, a violent incident occurred involving the complainant, Sarabhai Mahadevbhai Patni, and his brother Punjabhai Narana. According to the testimony, the witness’s brother was sleeping at the fields when he was confronted by a group of armed men, including Rajput Pabubhai (alias Pratap Singh) and Savji, who arrived on a tractor. The situation escalated quickly as the accused, armed with a gun, an axe, a dhariyu (sharp blade), and sticks, assaulted Punjabhai Narana; Pratap Singh reportedly struck him with a gun butt while Savji hit him on the leg with a heavy stick, causing him to collapse. The group, which also included Rabari Guga Jaha and Rabari Nakha Choma, proceeded to loot grocery sacks and property from the premises, loading the stolen goods onto their tractor before fleeing the scene. Following the arrival of concerned villagers and the identification of the attackers. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused.

4. 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.18 of 1992. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and also produced 21 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:

ORAL EVIDENCE