Gujarat High Court Acquits Man in 20-Year-Old Assault Case, Cites Glaring Contradictions Between Eyewitness and Medical Evidence

Ahmedabad: In a significant ruling that underscores the primacy of credible evidence, the Gujarat High Court has acquitted Jayraj alias Jayubhai Gorakhbhai Vara, the sole surviving appellant in a criminal case dating back to 2001. Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gita Gopi set aside the 2003 conviction, holding that the prosecution's case crumbled due to "material contradiction between the ocular evidence and medical evidence."

The court found the testimony of two key eyewitnesses—both relatives of the deceased—to be "highly unnatural, suspicious and unreliable," especially when juxtaposed with the medical findings that showed no external injuries on the victim.

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from an incident on November 24, 2001, where four individuals, including the appellant Jayraj Vara, were accused of assaulting Laljibhai Virabhai, who later succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution initially charged the accused under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging that Vara struck the deceased with an iron pipe on the chest and abdomen, while another accused squeezed his testicles.

In 2003, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Amreli, acquitted them of murder but convicted all four under Section 325 (grievous hurt) and Section 506(1) (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. They were sentenced to three years and six months of rigorous imprisonment.

During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, three of the four appellants passed away, leaving Jayraj Vara as the sole appellant challenging the conviction.

---

Clash of Testimonies: Ocular vs. Medical Evidence

Arguments for the Appellant: Advocate Bhishma A. Rawal, representing the appellant, argued that the conviction was fundamentally flawed. The core of his argument rested on the stark inconsistencies between the eyewitness accounts and the medical evidence. - The two eyewitnesses claimed they saw the appellant strike the deceased with an iron pipe on the chest and stomach. - However, the postmortem report, corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Sureshbhai Kabariya (P.W.1), explicitly stated there were "no any external injury marks over body." - The cause of death was identified as "shock due to hemorrhage (intra abdominal) due to rupture of spleen." The doctor testified that the deceased had an enlarged spleen, which is fragile and can rupture even from coughing or a fall. - Dr. Kabariya further deposed that an assault with an iron pipe would have left visible injuries like contusions, lacerations, or a "railroad pattern injury," none of which were present.

Arguments for the State: The prosecution, represented by APP Ms. Monali Bhatt, defended the trial court's judgment. It was argued that the appellant played a major role, using an iron pipe to strike a vital part of the body. The State maintained that the eyewitness testimonies were corroborative and truthful, stemming from a pre-existing enmity between the parties.

---

Court's Analysis and Pivotal Observations

Justice Gita Gopi conducted a meticulous re-examination of the evidence and found the prosecution's narrative untenable. The judgment highlighted several critical flaws:

"The conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes. ... In the first category it may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding assault having been made from a particular weapon is not truthful." - Citing Thaman Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh) .

The Court observed: - Unreliable Eyewitnesses: The conduct of the two eyewitnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3), who were relatives of the deceased, was deemed "very unnatural." Despite being just 60 feet away and witnessing a fatal assault on their nephew, they did not intervene. Their subsequent actions—leaving the injured victim to search for a vehicle at a religious gathering of 400-500 people and finding none—were found "unbelievable." - Contradictory Medical Evidence: The complete absence of external injuries directly contradicted the witnesses' claims of an assault with an iron pipe and fist blows. - Hostile Witnesses: Crucially, all independent panch witnesses, including those for the recovery of the alleged weapon from the appellant, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. - Failure to Establish Nexus: The prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the alleged assault and the ruptured spleen, especially given the doctor's testimony about the victim's pre-existing medical condition (enlarged spleen).

"On observing the facts and circumstances... it could be scrutinized that there is material contradiction between the ocular evidence and medical evidence. Absence of external injuries... and when the evidence of the material witnesses are contradictory to the medical evidence on record, then the ocular evidence is required to be disbelieved."

---

Final Verdict

Concluding that the trial court's judgment was "erroneous and contrary to law," the High Court allowed the appeal.

"The prosecution has failed to establish a nexus between the alleged act of the present appellant and the cause of death," the court stated before setting aside the conviction and sentence.

The judgment serves as a strong reminder of the judicial principle that in cases of gross contradiction, where medical evidence makes ocular testimony improbable, the latter must be discarded. The court ordered the acquittal of Jayraj alias Jayubhai Gorakhbhai Vara from all charges.