Gujarat High Court
Hardas Dhana vs State Of Gujarat on 16 March, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 649 of 2003
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1484 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
HARDAS DHANA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MM TIRMIZI(1117) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 16/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants-accused were convicted vide judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar dated 29.04.2003 in Sessions Case No.77 of 1991 for the offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 1.1 The appellants were also convicted for the offence under Page 1 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Section 120B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months and for the offence under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act (for short, the 'B.P Act') were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 100, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for seven days. The accused challenges the same in Criminal Appeal No.649 of 2003.
1.2 Criminal Appeal No.1484 of 2003 is filed by the State for enhancement of the punishment.
2. The facts of the case can be succinctly laid down as under:
2.1. On 11.07.1989, at about 7:30 in the evening, Aher Karsan Ranmal and Naran Saiwa on the motorcycle were heading towards their village Saiwa. At the outskirts of the village Saiwa, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention and in abetment, restrained Karsan Ranmal and illegally confined him. Accused no.1 Hardas Dhana, and accused no.2 Devarkhi Dhana were armed with sticks having nodes, accused no.3 Duda Dhana was wielded with hoe and Page 2 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined thereby had caused an offence under Section 341 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C.
2.1 Thereafter, all the accused , took Aher Karsan Ranmal at the corner of the road near the cross-road and with the stick and hoe, gave incessant blows on different parts of his body, which allegedly were in the knowledge of the accused that such injuries would cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Karsan Ranmal died because of the fatal injuries.
Thereby, the accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Tirmizi submitted that as per the FIR, the deceased had been injured on legs due to the stick blows, however, as per the statements dated 15.07.1989, the complainant had stated before the investigating agency that the deceased had been injured by "stones" and "kharpiya (hoe)". Therefore, the complainant had shown different weapons and injuries before the investigating agency. This creates material contradiction in the prosecution case, making the evidence laid down by the prosecution as unreliable.
Page 3 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 3.1 Learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Tirmizi submitted that the alleged offence had occurred in a public place and the witnesses who were examined as eye-witness have not supported the prosecution case and the witnesses who deposed about the incident, in fact, were not even present at the scene of the offence. Therefore, Advocate Mr. Tirmizi submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. Advocate Mr. Tirmizi states that the investigating agency had recorded the statements of the interested witnesses after a delay of three days and no explanation was given by the investigating agency with regard to the delay in recording the statements. 3.2 Learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Tirmizi contended that no dying declaration had been recorded through Executive Magistrate although the deceased died after six days from the date of the alleged offence. Advocate Mr. Tirmizi submitted that the FIR was registered at the hospital and no Doctor was present at that time to substantiate whether the complainant was fully conscious at that relevant time,and even in fit state of mind. Advocate Mr. Tirmizi stated that it was obvious that Page 4 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined the complainant was very serious when he was admitted to the hospital. It was the contention of Learned Advocate Mr. Tirmizi that investigating agency had played major role in falsely implicating the petitioners in the alleged offence. The allegations registered in the FIR are doubtful and far from truth.
3.3 Learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Tirmizi submitted that as per the evidence of Dr. Sashikant Vallabhdas Sapariya at Exh.12, deceased had suffered simple injuries. In fact as per the testimony of Dr. Satish Dinkar Kalele at Exh.22 and Dr. Arunbhai Harilal Vyas at Exh.17, the deceased was suffering from diabetes and he died due to Gangrene which could be due to lack of proper and timely treatment, and that the treatment record suggests accident injuries as proved during trial.
3.4 Learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Tirmizi submitted that as per the statement of Dr. Sapariya at Exh.12, there were 11 injuries on the person of deceased, however, as per the statement of Dr. Kalele at Exh.22, there were 25 injuries on the body of deceased. After the alleged offence some more Page 5 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined injuries were received by the deceased, for such injuries the appellants cannot be attributed with the alleged offence. There is a material contradiction between the evidence of Dr. Sapariya at Exh.12 and Dr. Kalele at Exh.22. Advocate Tirmizi submitted that the father of accused and the deceased are half blood brothers, and the civil dispute regarding land was going on between them. Witness no 17 who was in the police department and whose father's land was given in cultivation to the father of the accused and a suit was lying for specific performance, PW 17, gave the land to deceased, and the case of accidental injuries was made as of assault by the accused by the I.O. to favour PW17 and the sons of deceased. Mr Tirmizi stated that it was the case of false implication, hence urged to acquit the accused-appellants.
4. Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt stated that the judgment and analysis of the evidence is according with the law but the sentence ordered is insufficient and inadequate, therefore, there is a need for enhancement. APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that though the eye-witnesses to the incident have not supported the prosecution case, but the son, nephew and the uncle of the Page 6 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined deceased were immediately informed by Naran Saiwa, who had accompanied the deceased on the motorcycle while coming back from Narmana Village. The police was there immediately, at the place of incident, within no time and the injured deceased himself, at the place of incident, had informed about the name of the assailants to the son of the deceased and he was carried in a police van for treatment in the hospital, where before the I.O., the complaint was given by the injured himself and the medical evidence had corroborated the injuries sustained by the deceased. The chemical examination of the clothes and weapons also proves the corroboration to the prosecution case. 4.1 Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt submitted that minor discrepancies would be immaterial and cannot be relied upon. For the recovery of the weapons, the evidence of the I.O. can be relied upon ,hence stated that the conviction and order of sentence must be upheld,and the appeal be dismissed . In support of her submission, APP has placed reliance on the case of Mallikarjun and others v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 8 SCC 359, more specifically para 14, where in the Hon'ble Page 7 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Supreme Court referred the case of Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 722 which reads as under:
"43. ... It is a settled legal profession that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the Court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very particular in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The approach to be adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to determine whether the same are completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief."
5. Having heard learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Tirmizi for the appellant and APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the State, perused the record and the testimony of the witnesses. PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW14 are the doctors, who have been examined in the Page 8 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined matter.
6. As per PW1 Dr. S.V. Sapriya, on 11.07.1989, when he was serving as a Medical Officer at the Primary Health Centre, Bhanvad, at that time, at about 8:55 in the evening, Karsan Ranmal was brought for treatment for the injuries which he sustained because of quarrel. The doctor observed the following 11 injuries:
1) CLW, 1.0 cm x muscle deep verticle, front and upper part of right lower leg, type simple
2) CLW, 1.0 cm x muscle deep, 1.0 cm below and outer to injury no.1, type simple
3) CLW, 1.5 cm x skin deep transverse, front and upper part of right lower leg and 3.0 cm, medial to injury no.2, type simple
4) Incised wound, 1.0 cm x skin deep, anteriomedial aspect and upper part of right lower leg, type simple
5) CLW, 1.5 cm x muscle deep verticle, anteriomedial aspect and middle of left lower leg, type simple
6) CLW, 1.0 cm x muscle deep, front of lower leg, at sanction of middle and lower third, type simple
7) CLW, 1.0 cm x skin deep oblique, Page 9 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined pasteolateral aspect of left elbow joint, type simple
8) Abrasion, multiple in number at front of left knee joint, type simple
9) Bruise, 10.0 cm x 8.0 cm, pasteolateral aspect of upper part of right thigh, type simple
10) Bruise, 10.0 cm x 2.0 cm verticle, pasteolateral aspect and upper 2/3rd part of left forearm, type simple
11) Bruise, 5.0 cm x 2.0 cm, medial aspect and lower part of left arm, type simple.
6.1 The doctor had found the possibility of fracture on the bones in the lower part of both the legs. He gave primary treatment and for further treatment, the patient was referred to Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar. According to doctor, the patient was brought by police and PSI Bhanvad, had asked for his opinion certificate in connection with the injuries of the patient. The letter he received of the PSI on 11.07.1989 at 8:55 pm, wherein he identified the signature and placed in evidence at Exh.13. The doctor gave the MLC certificate No.60 on 11.07.1989 in two pages with the details of the injuries, the certificate was placed in evidence at Exh.14. 6.2 PW1 Dr. Sapriya was of the opinion that injury no.4 was Page 10 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined possible with the sharp weapon, while injury no.8 was possible with an uneven substance and the rest of the injuries were possible because of hard and blunt substance. The doctor witness was shown the weapon and the doctor's opinion was that except injury no.8, rest of the injuries could be possible by the weapons which were shown at Muddamal Pavti No.74 of 1989, which were two sticks. Doctor stated that when the patient was brought before him, he was conscious and along with the patient was PSI, Bhanvad. The complaint given by the patient was recorded at the hospital. The endorsement of patient being conscious was given by this doctor, who stated that the complaint was recorded of the patient in his presence. The endorsement made by him bears his signature. The complaint was referred to the doctor as Mark-A. 6.3 The further evidence of the doctor records that on 21.07.1989, at about 6:20 in the evening, a Yaadi was sent to him from Bhanvad Police Station with NOC Registration No.18/1989 with a requisition to issue a certificate of injury for Duda Dhana Aher. The Yaadi was produced at Mark 10/1, and the injury certificate which he issued for Duda Dhana Aher was referred as MLC No.63. According to the doctor, he noted one Page 11 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined healed wound 2x2 cm on the lower part of the right leg, which according to him, would have been suffered 8 to 10 days earlier of the issuance of the certificate, which he produced in evidence at Exh.18.
6.4 The examination-in-chief of the doctor refers to about 11 injuries which he saw on 11.07.1989, at about 18:55 hours on the body of Karsan Ranmal, with the history that the injuries were suffered during the quarrel. The doctor was not given the names of the assailants. The document at Exh.14, which has been issued by the doctor does not refer to any history, but the documents at Exh.16 records as patient of assaulted injury had come to Primary Health Centre, Bhanvad on 11.07.1989 at about 8:55 pm with PSI, Bhanvad and a police yaadi. The documents Exh.15 nor Exh.16 refers to the name of the assailants. The only history of patient who had come with PSI was with assaulted injury.
The doctor was referred to the Muddamal weapon in the Court, it transpires that the Muddamal Pavti No.74/98, were with reference to both the weapons, hoe as well as sticks. In accordance to the evidence of the Doctor, except injury no.8, other injuries could be caused by the weapon. The deposition Page 12 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined does not clarify the weapon which was shown to the doctor, while another weapon were two sticks, as described. Injury no.4 was by sharp weapon, while injury no.8 was by hard and uneven substance and according to the doctor, the rest of the injuries were possible by hard and blunt substance. The doctor has not specified that injury no.4 was by hoe and it is not his say that injury no.8 was possible by hoe.
6.5 In the cross-examination, the doctor stated that whenever a patient comes to him, he would not ask about the history, how he suffered the injury and by whom and how it was caused. By examining the patient, he found that all the injuries were simple in nature. The doctor stated that he had not given any opinion for injury no.12. He had not seen any suspected injuries.
6.6 The doctor in the cross-examination affirmed that when the complaint was recorded, he was not present there, he was attending his duties. The doctor affirmed that he has not written in his endorsement that the patient was in fit state of mind to give the statement, while had given the endorsement of patient being conscious and during his primary treatment, Page 13 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined he has administered analjetic injection, but denied that analjetic injection would give certain level of sedative . He also affirmed that there is no mention in the case papers about when the patient was discharged, nor the date and the time recording the endorsement had been mentioned. The doctor could not say whether the relatives of the patient were present when the complaint was recorded. In the case papers, it has not been noted that the relatives of the patient had come. The MLC case papers was taken in evidence at Exh.16. 6.7 In the cross-examination, the witness clarified that injury no.8 was not possible even by 'hoe' or by 'axe' and had also stated that the injury caused by 'hoe' or 'axe' could not be decided by merely seeing the injuries. In the cross- examination, it was brought on record that the certificate was given to police on 11.10.1989. The doctor had no information that the patient was diabetic. The distance between Saiwa village and Bhanvad village was of 12 kms. The doctor denied that if a person comes on a motorcycle in speed and if he falls down in a creek with the depth of 6 to 7 feet, then the injuries which he had referred were possible.
6.8 For injury no.10, he has made description in centimeters. Page 14 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined He did not affirm to the suggestion that the width of the weapons, should even be of 2 cms for such injury. According to him, injury nos.4 and 8 were not possible by only one weapon. He could only say that the patient was conscious, but he could not give any opinion regarding the mental fitness of the patient. He affirmed that the anesthetic injections would affect the consciousness of the person. He cannot say whether the complaint was recorded after the administration of the pain killers. Doctor had not admitted him as an indoor patient but had given the emergency treatment in the casualty room. He denied the suggestion that in casualty room, the entrance of the relatives of patient was forbidden. He could not say whether the complaint was prior or the treatment was prior. He was not the expert doctor of anatomy. He denied the suggestion that he had not examined the patient and he had not recorded the history.
6.9 Dr. A.H. Vyas was examined as PW2 before whom patient Karsan Ranmal of Bhanvad was referred from Primary Health Centre, Bhanvad. On 11.07.1989, at about 11:45 night, he was serving as Casualty Medical Officer. The doctor stated that the primary examination and the treatment was at Page 15 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Primary Health Centre, Bhanvad. There were more than one injuries on both the legs with sharp weapon and hard and blunt substance and there were also injuries on the left hand and for further treatment and examination, patient was admitted in main surgical ward no.2 before Dr. P.S Trivedi. PW2 placed the certificate at Exh.18. The doctor has deposed about injury no.1 as right tibia compound fracture, below 1/3 part commuted, injury no.2 1/3 part of fracture below tibula ,injury no. 3 fracture below 3rd mark of the index finger of left hand It was stated by Doctor that the patient died on 17.07.1989,and the doctor also stated that he had not given any treatment to the patient.
6.10 As per the injuries which were recorded by PW1, with the deposition of PW2, the injuries were simple in nature. The injury no.4 was on the right leg and injury no.8 was on the left knee. All the injuries noted by the doctor were on the legs and left hand. The evidence of PW2 refers the injury of fracture , on the legs and index finger. In the cross-examination of PW2, from the side of accused nos.1 and 2, while saying that he had brought the original case papers PW2 refers that the patient Page 16 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined had given the history in the ward. As per the history, the injury was by one stick and fist blows by Hardas Dhana. In his inquiry, the names of assailants were not given. This doctor does not refer to the fracture as simple injury and stated that in the case papers, there is a reference of patient suffering from diabetes. The copy of case papers he produced at Exh.19.
6.11 The fact which becomes noticeable is that, though in the case papers, a reference has been made of the name of Hardas Dhana, but when this doctor had inquired from the patient, the patient had not named the assailants. This is not the doctor who had treated the patient.
6.12 In the evidence of PW1, 11 injuries have been noted while PW2 has recorded three injuries which were fracture injuries. The fact that the patient was suffering from diabetes has come in the evidence of PW2.
7. PW5 Dr. Satish Dinkarbhai Kalel was examined, who had conducted the postmortem. The doctor on 17.07.1989, was doing his duty as Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine at MP Shah Medical College, Jamnagar. On that day, at about Page 17 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 4:30 in the evening, Karsan Ranmal Aher's dead body was brought by PSI, City B Division, Jamnagar, with a police Yaadi and inquest report and a postmortem form for the postmortem examination. The dead body was brought by Head Constable, A.C. Chauhan, Buckle No.1159. The Yaadi with the signature of PSI, Jamnagar was produced in evidence at Exh.23. The police report along with the Yaadi was produced at Exh.24 by PW5.
7.1 As per the testimony of the doctor, the postmortem started at 4:45 pm and concluded at 6:15pm. The bandages were on both the legs, below the knee till the ankle and there were adhesive tape on the index finger and the middle finger of right hand. The doctor recorded the external injuries about 25 in numbers, which as per the post-mortem in column no.17 were described as under:
1) 8x3 cm size, purple contusion, obliquely situated with its front end downward on left deltoid region.
2) 5x3 cm size, purple contusion, obliquely situated on posterolateral aspect of left elbow.
3) 1x0.5 cm size, skindeep lacerated wound with abraded surrounding skin is present just above Page 18 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined injury no.2 on left elbow.
4) 10x3 cm, vertical, purple contusion on posterolateral aspect of left forearm in its upper 2/3 portion.
5) 15x9 cm size, vertical, purple contusion on front of lower half of the left forearm.
6) 5x2 cm size, irregular purple contusion on medial aspect of left arm just above the elbow crease.
7) Patch, purple contusions (purple colored) in 6 cms, diameter area on the anteromedial part of the left forearm in its upper 1/3 portion.
8) Left little finger is contused on dorsal aspect.
9) 2x1 cm, transverse abrasion with scab on left side of back (scapular region) 17cm below left shoulder and 11 cm away from midline of back.
10) Oblique 8x3 cm area at left iliae crest on left flank shows scattered purple irregular shaped contusions.
11) 28x14 cm, vertical area on posterolateral aspect of upper half of left thigh shows diffuse purple contusion with few irregular abrasions with scab formation.
12) 10x6 cm, transverse contusion (purple coloured) at back of left knee.
13) Whole surface of right hip shows scattered purple contusions and abrasions.Page 19 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined
14) Irregular abrasions on whole of front and inner aspect of left knee.
15) Irregular scabbed abrasions at front and sides of lower 2/3rd part of left leg.
16) 1.5x05cm, vertical muscle deep wound with partially healed edges on middle of left leg on anteromedial aspect with abrasion on its outer border.
17) 1.5x1cm, oval muscle deep wound with partially healed edges at front of left leg at junction of middle and lower third.
18) 1cm diameter brown scabbed abrasion one on either side of inj.no.17 skin is shaved on left leg front.
19) 2cm long, horizontal, therapeutic stitched venesection wound on medial side of left ankle.
20) 10x7 cm, oblique area on posterolateral aspect of upper third of right thigh shows purple contusion.
21) Vertical 1x0.5cm wound, muscle deep, with partly healed edges is present on front of upper end of right leg.
22) 1x0.5cm, muscle deep would with partly healed edges is seen on right leg, 1cm below and outer to inj.no.21.
23) 1.5x1cm, transverse, oval skin deep wound on front of upper third of right leg 2.5cm medial Page 20 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined to inj.22.
24) 1x0.5cm, skin deep, incised wound on anteromedial aspect of right leg at junction of middle and upper third.
25) 25x10 cm, vertical bone deep wound with clean cut margins exposing muscles and fractured bones, on front of lower 2/3rd of right leg.
The right leg and foot are swollen and brownish black in color with a bulla formation at front of ankle joint. It has got gangrene in it. The left leg and foot is also swollen.
Internal injuries were as follows:
1) All the contusions show ecchymoses in subcutaneous tissues and muscles, underlying them.
2) There is communited fractures of right tibia and fibula bones in lower 1/3rd part with lacerated injuries to muscles. Right leg and foot shows gangrene.
3) There is an irregular fracture of proximal bone of right index finger, with ecchymosis in surrounding tissues.
4) There is an irregular fracture of left fibula bone in lower 1/3rd part with hematomas in surrounding muscles.
All the injuries are antemortem.
Page 21 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 7.2 In the cross-examination, the doctor could not state whether the injuries were possible with 'axe' and such opinion regarding the weapon could be given from the size of the cut on the patient. After the postmortem examination, he could not say whether the injuries were from the front side of the axe, nor could he say about injuries by 'hoe'. The doctor could not express his opinion about the weapon in connection with the injuries. The doctor stated that the patient was suffering from diabetes and there may or may not be possibility of gangrene and there are medicines available to stop such gangrene, if properly treated. The opinion about the death was Cardio Respiratory failure on account of multiple injuries to the body and their complications.
7.3 The evidence of all doctors with regard to the injuries noted are not consistent.
7.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnegowda and Ors. v. State of Karnataka by Arkalgud Police reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98, has made observation with regard to the basic principle of Criminal Jurisprudence which is read as under:
Page 22 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined "The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the case which was before Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. murder trial, there was a clear contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. Additionally, the oral evidence contained severe contradictions and there were evident lapses in the investigation. In view of these inconsistencies and deficiencies, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was required to be given to the accused. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused recorded by the High Court was set aside and the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was restored."
8. Witnesses examined as eye witness all have not supported the prosecution case. PW3 Lakha Meraman examined as an eyewitness to the incident is resident by birth of village Saiwa and an agriculturist. As per his testimony, he has his agricultural land from Tran Patiya to Saiwa Village. He has 35 vigas of agricultural land and since he is residing in the village by birth, he knows all the persons from the village. He is from Ahir community. He was also knowing Dhana Ranmal and he stated that they were residing on the outskirt of Vanavad and Saiwa village. The witness stated that incident had taken place between 7 to 8 in the evening, on that day, he Page 23 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined had gone to Jamnagar and had alighted at Tran Patiya in the evening. The witness stated, at that time, there would not be any vehicle to reach to Village Saiwa, so he sat in a tractor of Satapur, which had come to Tran Patiya for filling diesel. He does not remember the driver of the tractor. Apart from him, there were other eight persons in the vehicle, they were five from his village, while three were from other villages. Those other four from his village were Markhi Naran, Puna Pala, Rama Karsan, Sewa Naran.
8.1 According to the witness, while they were travelling in the tractor, near Bhimsi Sura's field, there was a pit of a gutter and there, Karsan Ranmal was lying at a distance of five feet of the road in the pit. The accused the witness said were running away from the western side of the field, but who were they, he has no knowledge. This he saw from the running tractor.
The witness PW 3 denied the fact that their tractor was on the road. When the tractor reached the road, at that time, the motorcycle of Aher Karsan Ranmal was lying down and Karsan Ranmal was beaten by his nephew Hardas Dhana, Devarkhi Dhana and Duda Dhana by stick and hoe and stones. He also Page 24 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined denied the fact that he had asked the tractor driver to stop the tractor, and so he had halted the tractor. The witness was declared hostile.
8.2 The evidence that comes on record was that PW3 had seen the deceased from the running tractor and he was lying down in the pit of the gutter, which was on the side of the road. He knows all the people of his village. He had not seen the accused beating the deceased. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that the incident had already concluded when the tractor was passing by and he denied that, at that time, it was dark.
9. PW11 Markhi Narang was another examined eye-witness, who as per the evidence of PW3 was traveling along with him in the tractor. PW11 has also not supported the prosecution case. He was declared hostile. He is a resident of village Saiwa and an agriculturist. In the examination in chief, he stated that the incident had taken place in the evening. He was in the tractor which was heading towards Satapur. He had sat in the tractor from Tran Patiya and was going to his village Satapur. He does not know the name of the owner of the tractor. He Page 25 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined also corroborated the fact that there were many persons in the tractor, but he does not know the name of those who were travelling with him.
9.1 This witness also stated that Karsan Ranmal was lying on the side of the road, which he saw while the tractor was passing by. What had happened thereafter, he does not know. He knows Karsan Ranmal as he was from his village. He had also seen one vehicle lying down. Apart from that, he had not seen any other thing. He denies of the incident of Dhana's children Hardas, Devarkhi and Duda beating Ranmal. He also denied of seeing any such incident after the tractor had stopped.
10. PW3 has also referred to one Puna Pala, who was travelling in the tractor along with them and prosecution has examined Puna Pala as PW12, who is also a resident of Village Saiwa and doing agricultural work. According to him, while they were coming in the tractor, they had seen Karsanbhai in the pit and his motorcycle lying near him. Apart from that, he had not seen anything there. This witness was also declared hostile.
Page 26 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined
11. PW10 Meghji Hirabhai too had turned hostile. He stated that he does not know what had happened. They had tea at Tran Patiya. The tractor was of his ownership and it was sent for fueling diesel. Thereafter, he had gone to Saiwa Village with Karsanbhai to have tea. According to him, Karsanbhai was on the motorcycle ahead of him and the tractor was following the motorcycle. On the road, the motorcycle had fallen down. The motorcycle was of Karsan and Karsan was also on the ground. Four to five people were standing there. He had not seen the accused. Thereafter, with the tractor, they had gone to Satapur. He denied of any such incident of going to Patel's field along with his tractor and at that time, having seen four to five people beating Karsan. PW 3 had also named Seiwa Naran who too was with him in the tractor, while prosecution case is that Naran Seiwa was with the deceased as pillion rider on the motorcycle. The evidence of PW10 Meghji Hirabhai the owner of tractor was that deceased Karsan was on his motorcycle ahead of his tractor, PW10 is not stating that Naran Seiwa was with deceased Karsan as pillion rider.
11.1 In the case of Krishnegowda (Supra) the view of the Page 27 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the contradictions in the evidence of witnesses were expressed in the following words:
"In the appreciation of evidence, contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments in the evidence of a witness have to be carefully examined. It was held that generally in criminal cases, discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses are bound to happen, as there is often a considerable gap between the date of the incident and the time when the witness deposes before the court. However, if such contradictions create serious doubt in the mind of the court regarding the truthfulness of the witnesses and it appears that there are clear improvements in their statements, then it is not safe to rely upon such evidence. It was further observed that, minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. However, when the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses prove to be fatal to the prosecution case, such contradictions go to the root of the matter, and in such cases the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt."
12. PW4 Paba Kesur in his evidence stated that since long he was residing at Narmana village and doing agricultural work, his elder son Nedshi had died. He had three sons and one daughter. Daughter Kuvarben was married in Saiwa village. The betrothal of Kuvarben had occurred 14 years earlier. The husband of Kuvarben is Lakha Parbat.
12.1 According to him, the incident had occurred 13 to 14 Page 28 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined years ago. He does not remember the day, date and month. The betrothal ceremony of Kuvarben as was at Narmana village, Karsan and Naran had come. After completing the engagement, both Karsan and Naran had left on motorcycle towards Saiwa village. He came to know the next day that at Tran Patiya, there was some quarrel and also came to know that the son of Dhana had quarreled. He knows no other thing. The police had recorded his statement after 10 to 15 days. 12.2 In the cross-examination, witness stated that as per the custom of the community, on the day of the engagement, the ornaments would be offered and the date of the marriage has to be arranged. The witness stated that the Karsan had come for the engagement but had not come with the offering of ornaments.
12.3 The testimony of this witness bring forth the evidence that the deceased Karsan and Naranbhai both had gone on a motorcycle to their village Narmana for the engagement ceremony of the witness daughter Kuvarben. The husband of Kuvarben is Lakha Parbat. The witness stated that Karsanbhai had come for the engagement ceremony, though it was Page 29 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined customary , no ornaments were offered.
13. PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 are Panch witnesses. PW6 Dhanabhai Bhim Singh was examined for the Panchnama Exh.29, which was of the place of offence. He has not supported the Panchnama and has only identified his signature on the Panchnama. PW7 Kesur Sajan Ahir was also called for proving the Panchnama Exh.29. He too has not supported the prosecution case. He only identified the signature on the Panchnama. PW8 Manilal Tulsidas was examined to prove the Panchnama for the production of stick and hoe by the accused, the witness has denied such facts and also denied the Panchnama. In the same way, PW9 Ramesh Maganlal was examined for the same purpose, but has also denied of any such incident of accused producing the weapon involved and has also denied of any seizure by the police. Both the witnesses, PW8 and PW9, on 21.07.1989 were taken to the guest house, which was beside the bus station and in the guest house, there were some clothes and a bed sheet. Apart from that, nothing was shown to them. Both the witnesses as PW 8 and PW9 have been consistent in stating that they had gone to the guest house. The Panchnama was not proved by Page 30 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined the Panchas.
Since the panchas had not supported the recovery of weapons the observation, in the case of Rameshbhai Hajabhai Chachiya v. State of Gujarat 2012 (3) GLR 2250 relied upon by Learned APP would become relevant which reads thus:-
"Discovery of weapon, valuables at instance of accused - Panch witnesses turning hostile- It was held that evidence of Investigating Officer can be relied on if only he successfully proves contents of discovery Panchnama and exact words attributed to be brought on record. Further, mere discovery of weapon not sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by person who discovered it and further, discovery evidence, by itself, is subsidiary and cannot sustain conviction and it can be used as corroborative evidence for conviction."
14. PW13 Rajshi Karsan is the son of the deceased Karsan Ranmal. According to his evidence, their family of two paternal uncles were staying in Saiwa village. His father Karsan Ranmal had gone to village Narmana, for establishing the relation of Lakha Parbat. Naran Saiwa accompanied his father. Both had gone on the motorcycle. Apart from them, his mother, grandmother, paternal aunt and elder mother and sisters had gone to the house of Parbat Kesuar at Narmana village. It was Page 31 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined the month of Ashad. The witness stated that his father and Naran Saiwa, after the occasion, while returning back, on the road near the field of Bhimsi Sura were beaten by three sons of his elder paternal uncle Dhana Ranmal i.e. Hardas Dhana, Devarkhi Dhana and Duda Dhana. No sooner this information was given by Naran Saiwa, who had come to the village, he came to the place of offence to know about the incident. 14.1 According to witness, when Naran Saiwa had informed him, at that time, Parbat Ranmal, Alshi Ranmal, Lakha Parbat were also present there, therefore, immediately they went to the place of incident. In the tractor, Parbar Ranmal Alsi and Ranmal Lakha Parbar had accompanied him. He saw his father lying in a creek on the side of the road, the motorcycle was parked on the stand. His father asked him to take him immediately to the hospital and had informed him that sons of Dhana had beaten him. His father was beaten on both the legs. The injury was on the ankle of the leg. Since it was 14 years ago, he does not recollect the definite leg. 14.2 According to the witness, immediately after him, the police van had come to the place and he, Parbat Ranmal and Page 32 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Lakha Parbat had made his father sit in the police jeep, who was taken to the Government Hospital, where the primary treatment was given and thereafter, his father was taken to Irwin Hospital. His father had given the complaint to the police. He identifies the thumb impression of his father on mark A. 14.3 The cause of incident, according to PW13, the son of the deceased, was that they had kept on lease the land of Darbar for agricultural purpose and they were cultivating. Accused who were earlier cultivating the land, Darbar had objection in the administration and therefore, the land was handed over to the deceased father and the accused for that reason, were harboring grudge. He stated that his father had died during the treatment.
The cause of dispute between the two brothers was the land given to them for cultivation. This witness as son though had seen his father at the place of incident does not recollect the injuries suffered by his father.
14.4 Observation regarding to the related witness in the case of Krishnegowda (Supra) is as under:
Page 33 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined "In respect of related witnesses, it was held that there is no absolute rule that the evidence of related witnesses must necessarily be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. However, it would be trite in law to seek independent witnesses when the evidence of related eyewitnesses is found to be incredible and not trustworthy."
15. The complaint is produced in evidence at Exh.49. The complaint is at Bhanvad Primary Health Centre before the PSI, with the endorsement of the doctor regarding patient being conscious. The complaint appears to have been recorded at 21:10 hours on 11.07.1989. The complaint to the PSO, Bhanvad Police Station, was referred as Cr.No. 19/89 under Section 341, 324, 114 of the I.P.C. The complaint was not signed but bears the thumb impression of the deceased.
16. PW1 Dr. Sapriya was the doctor who was serving at Bhanvad Primary Health Centre. The witness doctor has corroborated the fact that the patient was brought along with the police and as per the testimony, in the evening at about 8:55 hours, the doctor attended the patient, who was informed that patient had sustained injury in quarrel. The doctor has stated that the complaint was registered in the Page 34 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined dispensary, and the patient was conscious and according to him, the complaint was recorded in his presence and he had put the endorsement with his signature thereafter. While in the cross-examination, the doctor witness has not supported his presence at the time of recording of the complaint. Rather, the doctor has affirmed that when the complaint was recorded, he was not present there and he was busy in his work. He very specifically states that the relatives had not come along with the papers since no such endorsement was made in the case papers. The doctor states that he does not remember whether the patient's relatives were present there at the time of the complaint. So the evidence of the son of the deceased PW13 and the doctor does not find consistency. Son, brother and nephew of deceased with the police were present there at the hospital.
16.1 The injuries which were referred were on the right leg and the left leg and one injury was on the upper part of the left hand. The doctor has not given any evidence with regard to the condition of deceased fingers. What was the reason for the complainant not signing the complaint even when he was Page 35 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined in conscious state does not become clear. The doctor has only made an endorsement of patient being conscious, but no such endorsement was there of patient being in fit state of mind. 16.2 PW13 Rajshi Karsan, the son of the deceased, stated that Naran Saiwa, who had gone along with his father had informed him that sons of Dhana Ranmal had beaten his father. What was the role of Naran Saiwa at that time has not come on record. Whether Naran Saiwa had sustained any injury does not become clear. On 11.07.1989, Duda Dhana, who is accused in the matter, was not medically examined by the doctor, but on 21.07.1989, in connection with NC complaint no.19/89 at Bhanvad Police Station. PW1 Dr. Sapriya deposed that the injury of patient Duda Dhana (accused) was 8 to 10 days old. Healed injury as referred was 2x2 cm on the lower part of the right leg. The yaadi which was sent to the doctor was to give a certificate regarding the injury of quarrel in connection with the complainant Duda Dhana. Why the police had not immediately brought accused Duda Dhana for medical examination is also not clear. What was the NC complaint of accused Duda Dhana is not coming on record. Page 36 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 16.3 The complaint dated 11.07.1989 was registered at the police station recording that the incident had occurred at 19:30 hours and the information of the incident was given at 21:10 hours. It was the FIR of the police station under Section 154 of the Cr.PC placed in the evidence at Exh.49, which refers to Cr.No.90/89 16.4 In the cross-examination of the son PW13, the witness stated that the police had inquired from him at Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar on the date of the incident. The police was Patel Saheb. He denied the suggestion that the police had inquired from him only on the fourth day. The witness stated that his father had given the complaint. He had reached the place of incident at 7 in the evening and from the place of incident to Bhanvad Government Hospital, it takes about 15 to 20 minutes in vehicle. His father was bleeding. He had not seen whether the jeep was filled with blood. They waited for about half or one hour at the hospital. The doctor had put bandage on his father at the dispensary and immediately, had sent them to Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar. He was along with his father. At the Government Hospital, Bhanvad, they all four Page 37 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined were together, sitting with his father and the police had taken the complaint. The police had not given the copy of the complaint. He denied the suggestion that his father was lying unconscious at the place of incident.
16.5 PW13 denied the suggestion that in emergency room, police had inquired from his uncle and him and then had written the same and thereafter the thumb impression of the father was taken on the complaint. Witness stated that he has not informed the police and when he had reached the place of incident, his father had told that the three sons of Dhana had beaten him. On behalf of accused no.3, when cross- examination was taken of the witness, he stated that his grandfather had two wives. Dhanabhai was the son of the first wife and his father was the son of the second wife and when the incident had occurred, they were not in talking terms with Dhanabhai. They were not even visiting each other during any sickness or any occasion in each other's house. There were criminal cases of breach of peace. He denied the suggestion that there was a dispute with regard to the boundary between Dhana Ranmal and Dhana Saiwa and there were suits in that Page 38 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined regard. The land of the Darbar was known as Jambudani Sim, which was owned by Balubha Khalji. He denied the suggestion that that land prior to them was cultivated by Dhanabhai for last 20 to 21 years.
16.6 When the incident had occurred, Balubha was not alive. Balubha's son Khumansinh was in police and he was posted at Jamnagar. He denied the suggestion that Dhanabhai had sold the land of Jambudani Sim for Rs.11,400/- to Balubha. The witness does not know that, at the time of the incident, Khumansinh had filed an injunction suit against Balubha and also denied the suggestion that because of the groupism, witness father wanted to get the land vacated from Dhana Ranmal. He denied the suggestion that since Khumansinh was in police, therefore, at the place of incident, they had shown the presence of police. Actually, there was no police jeep present there. He denied the suggestion that his father had fallen down from the motorcycle. With the assistance of Khumansinh, they had filed a false case against the accused. 16.7 In the cross-examination, the facts have been brought on record by the defense that Dhanabhai that is the father of the Page 39 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined accused had sold the land Jambudani Sim for Rs.11,400/- to Balubha and Balubha's son Khumansinh who was in police, had filed the injunction suit against his own father and because of internal groupism, the deceased wanted to get the land vacated from Dhana Ranmal. The case has been put up that since Khumansinh was in police, with the assistance of the police, a false case has been filed and the presence of the police jeep was shown at the place.
16.8 Here, the glaring fact which is required to be taken into notice is the complaint which was registered, does not bear the signature of the deceased, but only has thumb impression. Further, Naran Saiwa was accompanying the complainant. He could not be examined as PW13 stated that he had died. But nothing is coming on record by way of evidence of PW13 as the son of the deceased as to how, and in what manner, the accused had beaten deceased Karsan Ranmal. The only fact which the witness PW13 could state was that Naran Saiwa when he came, he told them that three sons of his elder paternal uncle Dhana Ranmal i.e. Hardas Dhana, Devarkhi Dhana and Duda Dhana had beaten his father. What were the Page 40 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined weapons in the hands of the accused had not been stated by Naran Saiwa to the son of the complainant. Who had informed the police, about the alleged weapon also does not come on record. Why the police van had come immediately at the place of incident even before the sons of the deceased and others could reach there. There is no Panchnama of the police jeep to corroborate the fact that the complainant deceased was taken in the police jeep to the Government Hospital, Bhanvad. The injury which the son could state was only on the legs. He could not even specify the exact leg on which the father had sustained injury.
16.9 Son as PW13 stated that the motorcycle was on the stand, while PW3, PW10, PW11 and PW12 have not stated of seeing the motorcycle parked on the stand. These witnesses PW3, PW10, PW11 and PW12 had seen Karsan Ranmal lying down on the side of the road who had fallen in the creek, but none of these witnesses states that he had asked for any assistance for taking him to the hospital. All these witnesses PW3, PW10, PW11 and PW12 have very categorically denied of accused having beaten the deceased. The son of the Page 41 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined complainant had come in the tractor. Why has he not taken his father in the tractor does not become clear and why the father was required to be taken to the hospital in a police van also does not become clear.
According to PW3, Lakha Mera Man in the tractor, they they were Murkhi Naran, Puna Pala, Rama karsan and Seiwa Naran. PW 10, Meghji Hira bhai the owner of the tractor and also named Seiwa Naran, who too stated that Seiwa Naran was along with them in the tractor PW 10 also stated that deceased Karsan's motorcycle was ahead of his tractor. Those travelling in the tractor, who were examined as the prosecution witnesses had not seen the accuse meeting deceased Karsanbhai. Why Naran Seiwa had been shown as a person who informed the son of the deceased Karsanbhai that the sons of Dhanabhai were beating Karsanbhai.The role of Naran Seiwa becomes suspicious, who had not even cared to deceased from the alleged beatings.
16.10 It is also very strange, that none of the witnesses as PW3, PW10, PW11 and PW12 had stated that son of the deceased complainant, Rajshi Karsan (PW13) along with Parbat Ranmal, Alshi Ranmal (PW16) and Lakha Parbat Page 42 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined (PW15), were going towards the place of incident. The conduct of all the witnesses as PW3, PW10, PW11 and PW12 becomes questionable. If they had seen the complainant deceased lying there, they would certainly had climbed down the tractor to assist him to take him to the hospital. None of the witnesses could name the driver of the tractor. Even the owner of the tractor PW10 Meghji Hira could not name his driver on the tractor.
16.11 According to PW10 Meghji Hira, deceased Karsan Ranmal was ahead of them on the motorcycle and their tractor was behind. They had seen the motorcycle fallen on the road. PW10 could identify it as motorcycle of Karsan. He also stated that Karsan had fallen there. The evidence of this witness would not leave the scope of not seeing the assailant. Motorcycle was ahead of their tractor. This witness is not saying that Naran Saiwa was pillion-rider on the motorcycle.
17. As per the fact, as well the circumstances of the case, PW3, PW10, PW11 and PW12 had first seen the deceased on the road. It is not the case of PW13 that any of the four had informed him at the place of incident or thereafter about their Page 43 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined seeing the accused beating the deceased complainant. How Naran Saiwa had reached village Saiwa also does not become clear and why Naran Saiwa had not sustained any injuries in the incident and whether he had intervened in the quarrel also does not become clear. The enmity of the family with regard to land is brought on record. The deceased and the accused are related to each other through the common ancestor. Accused were the nephews of the deceased.
18. The complaint Exh.49 on 11.07.1989 by Karsan Ranmal Aher, records that he is resident of Saiwa Village. They are 5 brothers. The eldest was Dhana Ranmal and thereafter was Kesur and Parbat. He was the 4 th and Alshi was the last. The complaint records that Dhana and Kesur were staying separately and had their own agricultural land. Dhana and his three sons (accused) were residing at the outskirts of village Saiwa.
18.1 According to the complaint, on 10.07.1989 in the afternoon, he and Naran Saiwa, who is his family relative, both of them had gone to village Narmana for the engagement ceremony of their nephew Lakha Parbat (PW15) and while Page 44 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined returning from village Narmana, on the road to Saiwa Village, on their motorcycle Rajdoot, at about 7:30 in the evening, near Bhimsi's field, from the opposite side, Hardas Dhana, Devarkhi Dhana and Duda Dhana with the stick, together had stopped him and when he was alighting from the vehicle, at that time, Duda Dhana questioned him as to why they were taking Balubha's land on lease and on getting excited, dragged complainant on the side of the road near Bhimsi's field and took him near the pit of the crossing.
18.2 All the three started giving incessant blows on both his legs. The blows were given on the upper part of the knee of the right leg, about 5 injuries were on the thigh, and even had given about 4 blows on the knee of the left leg with the stick. They were alternatively beating him and lot of blood was oozing. The complainant has also recorded, that Naran to inform his brother in the village had ran away from the place and all the three had also fled away from the place. Since both his legs were bleeding, he remained there. His five brothers and Meraman Devanand and Lakha Parbat, his nephew had brought him to Bhanvad Hospital for treatment. He has Page 45 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined recorded that he was conscious and three of them had beaten him with stick bearing nodes, injuries were on the leg and since he was dragged, there were injuries on his back. The complaint does not record the injury by hoe.
19. In accordance to the evidence of PW13 Rajshi Karsan, son of the deceased, as soon as he reached the place, the police van also had come there and he along with others had taken his father in the police van to Bhanvad Government Dispensary and after the preliminary treatment, they had taken the father to the Irwin Hospital. The doctor as PW1 had stated that after the treatment, the patient had gone to Irwin Hospital.
19.1 PW14 Dr. S.G. Mehta is a doctor from Irwin hospital, who has referred that the patient was admitted at about 11:55 pm. PW14 himself had not given any treatment to the patient. He had only identified the handwriting of Dr. Trivedi and Dr. Khatri on documents MLC No.1983/89. Why this Dr. S.G. Mehta was examined as witness does not become clear. The patient was treated by orthopedic surgeon, vascular surgeon and other surgeons.
Page 46 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 19.2 The doctor witness stated that on 15.07.1989, some minor operation was conducted thereafter, the treatment continued in orthopedic section and again on 17.07.1989, at 1:30 in the afternoon, there was another minor operation and during the treatment, he died at about 2:30 in the afternoon. It appears that the witness was examined only to bring in fact that the patient had given the history when he was admitted on 11.07.1989 at 11:55 pm. The doctor stated that the patient had multiple injuries and in the examination-in-chief, he stated that whatever facts he has stated were as per the record and in the case papers, the injuries sustained by the patient has been mentioned 19.3 In the cross-examination from the side of accused no.1, he again reaffirmed the fact that the deposition which he had given was from the record. He denied the suggestion that the injuries which the patient sustained was accidental. He was referred to the case papers dated 15.07.1989 where it was recorded that they were accidental injuries. By bringing to his notice page no.21 and 22 of Exh.19 dated 12.07.1989, the witness stated that the patient was examined by Dr. A.D Page 47 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Khatri wherein it was written as accidental injury. Thereafter, on that day, Dr. D.K. Vadiya had also examined the patient, and he too had referred them as accidental injury. He denied the suggestion that a diabetic patient cannot be administered glucose injections.
19.4 From the side of accused no.2, when the witness was cross-examined, doctor stated that Gangrene is an independent separate disease and even if no injury has been suffered, in spite of that, a diabetic patient can suffer gangrene and that can cause death and if treatment is not given in time, patient can suffer heart attack and if anesthesia is given to a patient then a weak hearted man can die. He had not admitted the suggestion that since the patient's situation was normal, therefore, he was advised surgery. 19.5 Referring to the record, witness doctor stated that the patient was having crisis of hypertension. On 17.07.1989 till 12:30, the condition of the patient was stable and thereafter, during the treatment, he died. The witness also stated that on 15.07.1989, while the doctor had examined the patient, he must have found the condition normal and therefore, must Page 48 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined have decided for the operation. He denied the fact that on 12.07.1989, since the patient was out of danger, therefore, was permitted to transfer in the board.
19.6 The examination of this doctor witness PW14 appears to have been made only to fill up the gap for naming the accused, however, the same case papers, when referred, on 15.07.1989, the paper showed accidental injuries and on 12.07.1989 too, Dr. Khatri had also recorded accidental injuries and therefore too, Dr. K.D. Vadiya had also shown the injuries as accidental.
The medical evidence showed the injuries as because of accident. None of the witnesses examined as eyewitnesses could give evidence of accused beating the deceased. The complaint came to be registered at Erwin Hospital, Jamnagar. The doctors were treated the diseased were not examined though available. The complaint as stated to have been recorded in the hospital, becomes doubtful. In view of the circumstances and the medical record cannot be believed that the complaint was given by the deceased to the police in the hospital. The conduct of the Police also does not appear to be Page 49 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined fair. The police has taken special interest in creating evidence in the form of witnesses but those projected as Eye witness not supported the prosecution case. The remaining witnesses are all interested witnesses as son ,nephew and uncle of deceased all showing their interest for the conviction of the accused. They are not the eye witnesses.
20. PW15 is Lakhabhai Parbatbhai, for whose engagement ceremony, the deceased had gone to Narmana village. Lakhabhai Parbatbhai in his deposition stated that he was residing in village Saiwa from his childhood. At the time of incident, he was with his parents in joint family. The deceased Karsan Ranmal was his elder uncle. According to him, the quarrel had taken place 13 to 14 years ago with deceased Karsan Ranmal. The place of incident he referred as near the field of Bhimsi Sura between Tran Patiya of Saiwa village. He also stated that along with Karsan Ranmal, Naran Saiwa was with him. Both of them had gone for his engagement at Narmana village and both were returning back on Rajdoot motorcycle from Narmana village to Saiwa village. 20.1 The witness stated that Naran Saiwa, when he had come Page 50 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined to village, had informed him that Karsan was beaten by the accused, such information was given to him at 6:00 pm. At that time, he along with Parbat Ranmal, Alshi Ranmal and Rajsi Karsan were present there. The witness stated Naran Saiwa had informed that accused had beaten Karsanbhai with the stick, pipe and hoe. Thereafter, they had gone to the place of incident in tractor. When they reached there, they saw that Karsan was injured and was bleeding. At that time, police vehicle had come at the place of incident and Karsan was taken to Primary Health Centre, Bhanvad and when his condition got serious, he was transferred to Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar and during the treatment, he died. 20.2 The cause of complaint he stated was the land which was cultivated in lease of Khumansinh by them and for that, accused had quarreled. Earlier that land was cultivated by the accused, as Khumansinh had given the land to them. In the cross-examination of this witness, he stated that his father and deceased were real brothers, while Dhanabhai was from the earlier marriage, who from the very beginning was staying separately. He denied that there was dispute with regard to the share of land between Dhanabhai and his father and uncle. Page 51 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined He denied that there was a case in Bhanvad Court between Dhanabhai and Naran Saiwa. He denied that deceased and his father had good relation with Naran Saiwa, but the witness voluntarily stated that, accused too had good relation with Naran Saiwa. They all were staying in Saiwa village. He has no knowledge whether Dhanabhai's three children had their residential house in the field.
20.3 Naran Saiwa is the person who had accompanied the deceased in the engagement ceremony of the present witness PW15. The witness stated that he could not say whether Dhana Ranmal had the information about his engagement at village Narmana. No invitation was sent to Dhana Ranmal regarding his engagement. He affirmed that since they were not in good terms, therefore, no invitation was sent. He cannot say whether Vanavad village is near to Dhana Ranmal's field. According to the witness, from Tran Patiya to the road to Saiwa Village, Dhana Ranmal's field was at a distance of 3 to 4 kms while he could not state as to which of the distance is greater between Tran Patiya to Saiwa Village or from Tran Patiya to Dhana Ranmal's field.
Page 52 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 20.4 The witness does not remember the date of his engagement. He denied that in Aher community, there were two different ceremonies for the engagement and for Chunri (dupatta). He stated that his father-in-law would know about the ceremony of engagement. He and his father had not attended the engagement ceremony.
20.5 At the time of incident, he stated that they had Rajdoot motorcycle and tractor and the registration number of the motor cycle was GJR6084. The management of their house and all the transactions were carried by deceased Karsanbhai. He stated that the motorcycle was not mostly driven by deceased Karsanbhai, but would be used by all. At the time of incident, he had no license of the motorcycle. His father was not driving the motorcycle. From the very beginning, he was doing agricultural work.
20.6 The witness stated that Naran Saiwa had come to their house walking. So, according to this witness, from the place of the incident to the house of the deceased, the person who was with the deceased i.e. Naran Saiwa had come walking to their Page 53 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined house. The distance was of 2 to 3 kms. The witness stated that there were no residential house in the field of Bhimsi Sura and denied the suggestion that at the time of incident, on the end of the road, there was residential house of Bhimsi Sura. He does not remember whether in the police statement, he had informed the police of beatings with the pipe. As per the witness, he had stated that the accused had beaten the deceased with stick, hoe and stones.
20.7 The witness has no knowledge that Khumansinh Balubha's land was purchased by Dhana Ranmal, and has no knowledge about any case in Bhanvad Court between Khumansinh Balubha and Dhana Ranmal and also has no knowledge of chapter cases instituted against each other. 20.8 The witness was also asked about a case filed by Mudiben Dhaya against Dhana Ranmal,while he has the knowledge that Mudiben Dhaya was from Harijan village, but the witness has no knowledge that the fact was disclosed in the testimony of Mudiben Dhaya that this witness had got the complaint filed against Dhana Ranmal. Alshi Ranmal was his uncle and he has no knowledge that Dhana Ranmal had filed a Page 54 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined defamation case in the Court against his uncle and denied the suggestion that on the basis power of groupism and the old dispute, they had tried to forcibly take away the land from Dhana Ranmal, purchased from Khumansinh. The witness denied that they had forged a false complaint by converting a motor accident case and he denied the suggestion that all the injuries, his uncle sustained was by motor accident and not by any quarrel.
20.9 From the examination of this witness, in whose engagement ceremony the deceased had gone, it transpires that he and his father were not present in the engagement ceremony, while Naran Saiwa had accompanied the deceased. The motorcycle which was involved has not been seized in the matter. What was the condition of the motorcycle at the time of incident does not get clear. In view of the deposition of the Dr. S.G Mehta PW14, the treatment documents on 12.07.1989 and 15.07.1989 and thereafter too, referred to as accidental injuries.
21. The dispute with regard to land between Khumansinh, Dhana Ranmal and his accused sons has been brought on Page 55 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined record through the evidence of this witness PW15, as well as the sons of the deceased, PW13 as well as PW16.
22. PW16 Alshi Ranmal is the brother of the deceased who was residing since his birth in Saiwa Village. He stated that on that day, his brother's son Lakha's engagement was there at village Narmana and therefore on that occasion, Karsan Ranmal (deceased), Naran Saiwa and two, three women had gone. Karsan and Naran both had gone on a motorcycle and had also returned back on the same vehicle. On the road, Karsanbhai was beaten by the accused. He stated that Karsanbhai was beaten at a place which was beside Bhimsi Sura's field between Tran Patiya to Saiwa road. 22.1 When he was beaten, at that time, Naranbhai was with him and Naranbhai after coming to the village had informed that Karsanbhai was being beaten. Such information was given at their house. According to him, the information was given between 5:30 to 6:00 pm. Thereafter he, Rajsingh Karsan and Lakha Parbat had gone on a tractor and when they reached there, they saw Karsanbhai in the creek, police van had come ahead of them and picking Karsan from the creek, he was Page 56 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined brought on the road, who was taken to Bhanvad Hospital in the vehicle, and they had gone in the tractor. From there, Karsan was taken to Jamnagar, Irwin Hospital where he stayed for about six to seven days and during treatment, died. The cause of incident the witness stated was the field of Khumansinh Darbar which was cultivated in sharing with Dhanabhai and therefore, Khumansinh Darbar and Dhanabhai had dispute regarding the land and the land was thus given to them.
22.2 The case as could be drawn from the evidence of PW13, the son of the deceased, PW15 the nephew of the deceased and PW16, the brother of the deceased, the issue was with regard to land of Khumansinh Darbar, who is PW17. PW17 was at the time serving in police department. The fact becomes noticeable from the evidence of PW16 that prior to their reaching the place, already police vehicle was there at the place of incident. Who informed the police and why the police vehicle was there prior to all these witnesses arriving at this place is a conundrum which has not been explained by any of the witnesses. Whether Naran Saiwa had informed the police Page 57 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined of the accident so the police had come at the place of incident, and if not, Naran Saiwa went walking the distance of 2 to 3 kms, had reached the house of these witnesses, why he was not injured by any of the accused who were three in number with the alleged weapon of stick, hoe and stones. Why the accused had allowed him to run away from the place does not become clear. None of the eye-witnesses have stated that Naran Saiwa was also injured in the incident, the conduct of Naran Saiwa thus becomes unnatural as to why he allowed the accused to beat the deceased without even making attempt to intervene and protect Karsan Ranmal. The case becomes doubtful while comparing with the evidence of witnesses who were travelling in the tractor behind the motorcycle of deceased, according to them Saiwa Naran was travelling with them,and when none of those had seen accused beating Karsanbhai,then how was it that Naran Saiwa had given information of accused beating Karsanbhai with stick and hoe.
23. The police had tried to explain their presence at the place of incident immediately after the incident. The Investigating Officer (I.O) Popatbhai M. Patel as PW18 stated that in the Page 58 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined year 1989, he was PSI at Bhanvad and on 18.07.1989 he and head-constable Manikumar Maru and others were in patrolling at village Tran Patiya, Saiwa and other villages and in the evening, when they were present at the Saiwa Gram Panchayat Office, they came to know that there was quarrel at a distance of 4 kms from Saiwa village to the road towards Veral village. Therefore, since it was a case of quarrel, they immediately rushed to the place and, in the interregnum, the Sarpanch of Saiwa Village and other four persons had come with the doctor.
23.1 The complainant was lying in the pit at the cross-road and as the treatment was necessary, therefore, in the police vehicle, he was taken to Bhanvad Government Hospital and after inquiring from the Medical Officer, and since the complainant was conscious in the presence of Medical Officer, the injured narrated the incident which was recorded by way of complaint and the offence under Section 324 and 114 of the I.P.C was registered. The investigation was with him, thereafter, he had recorded the statements of the witnesses and had drawn the Panchnama of the place of incident. While Page 59 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined going on joining leave, the further investigation was handed over to Head Constable Manikumar Maru and during that period, injured complainant during the treatment died. Further investigation, at that time, was handed over to Jodhpur PSI, Shri B.T. Vaza and after he resumed the service, he took back the full investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed the chargesheet against the accused. 23.2 The evidence thus shows that from the very beginning, this I.O was present. The complaint was recorded by him, the Panchnama was drawn by him, the statement of witnesses were also recorded by him and ultimately, the chargesheet was also filed by him. In order to show the fairness of the matter after recording the complaint, the officer was required to hand over the investigation to some independent person. Though the investigation was in between period by Head Constable Manikumar Maru and PSI Shri B.T. Vaza, but nothing substantial had been done by them. 23.3 The I.O was shown the complaint wherein he identified the thumb impression of the injured Karsan Ranmal. The I.O stated that the endorsement of the Medical Officer, Bhanvad Page 60 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined was there on the complaint, regarding patient's consciousness. The complaint, therefore, was adduced in evidence at Exh.49 through the testimony of the I.O. The witness as I.O also stated that the further statement of the complainant was also recorded by him. According to the witness, the Head Constable Manikumar Maru and PSI Shri B.T. Vaza, both had died . 23.4 The crucial fact which becomes noticeable in the investigation is that none of the officers deemed fit to get recorded dying declaration of the complainant. The I.O is not explaining as to why the thumb impression of Karsan Ranmal was taken instead of his signature.
24. Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861 becomes relevant to mention here. It reads as under:
"It shall be the duty of every officer in-charge of a police-station to keep a general diary in such form as shall, from time to time, be prescribed by the (State Government) and to record therein, all complaints and charges preferred, the names of all persons arrested, the names of the complainants, the offences charged against them, the weapons or property that shall have been taken from their possession or otherwise, and the names of the witnesses who shall have been examined. The Magistrate of the district shall be at liberty to call for and inspect such diary."Page 61 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 24.1 Every police officer is duty bound to keep the general diary in the form prescribed by the State Government and has to record therein all the complaints and charges preferred, the names of all the persons arrested, the names of the complainants, offences charged against them, the weapon or the property that has been taken from the possession of the accused and the names of the witnesses who shall have been examined.
24.2 Here, the I.O. has relied on Exh.49 which is the complaint recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.PC and the police has recorded the date and time of offence as 19:30 hours on 11.07.1989 and time of receiving the information on 11.07.1989 at 21:10 hours. The place of offence in Exh.49 is at a distance of 16 kms on the eastern side from the police station in the outskirts of Village Saiwa, A.Bit Bhanvad. The original complaint was recorded before this officer PW18. The original complaint as stated to be recorded by PW18, has been made the part of the general diary to be maintained under Section 154 of the Cr.PC. The provision of Section 154 records Page 62 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined that the information which is given is to be reduced in writing and it shall be signed by the person who gives it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government has prescribed. The Police Inspector was required to give the clarification as to why signature was not taken on the complaint and why the complaint bears the thumb impression. The noticeable fact is that this police was present there even prior to other witnesses appearing on the place of incident. 24.3 The police PW18 stated that he was there in the village on patrolling. No documentary evidence has been produced to show the patrolling work of this police in the area of Tran Patiya, Saiwa and other villages and about his presence in the evening at Saiwa Gram Panchayat Office. The Vehicle Log Book could have been produced to explain his presence at the place of incident. The crucial fact is that though the police was there and the accused were in the very neighbourhood, inspite of that, no attempt was made by the police to arrest the accused immediately. The I.O. was not required to carry the injured in his police vehicle. Had it been so, he was required to Page 63 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined draw the Panchnama of the vehicle as it was the case of the witnesses that the injured was bleeding profusely. The police PW18 was the immediate person who had seen the victim. He had not given any description of the physical state of the victim, the injuries sustained by the deceased. 24.4 According to PW18, even Sarpanch of Saiwa village had come there and doctor was also there at the place of incident. Who was that doctor present there, has not been clarified by the I.O. PW18. What was the observation of the doctor also does not come on record. Who were the four to five persons who were there has also not been clarified by the I.O. PW18. 24.5 The officer does not state that those four to five persons were PW13, PW15 and PW16. The Panchnama of the place of incident was also drawn. The Panchas had not supported the Panchnama Exh.29, which was drawn on the next day i.e. 12.07.1979, between 8 hours to 9 hours. The Panchnama Exh.29 records that the Panchas had noted the scattered blood stains on Tran Patiya at the cross-road, but the police had not seized any article from the place of offence. Panchnama Exh.29 does not record that the police had collected the soil Page 64 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined from that place for forensic examination. 24.6 Exh.57 is the report of Scientific Assistant, Chemical Examiner, Junagadh. About five parcels were sent and the examination were of nine samples. The chemical analyzer report does not show of any soil examined of the place of incident. The sample no.7 and sample no.9 is shown as stick, while sample no.8 is hoe. Sample no.7 stick of 153 cm which describes one metal ring fit on it, while on sample no.9, 133 cm long stick, on both the hands, there were metal rings fit, and was smudge with soil on the broad side. The sample found blood stain on it and on the hoe too, which was described as metal part of 18 cm and the handle of the hoe was 125 cm, the blade was totally found to be rusted. The weapon which was recorded were the sticks and the hoe. It is not that these weapons were hidden somewhere in an inconspicuous place. The clothes of the deceased and accused along with two sticks and hoe were sent for chemical analysis. Exh.59 shows human blood with blood group A on all the items sent for analysis. 24.7 The Panchnama was drawn for the weapons in a guest house which was beside the bus-stand, the evidence of PW8 Page 65 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined and PW9, have not supported the case of the police that in their presence, the accused Hardas Dhana and Dhudha Dhana had produced stick having nodes. As per the evidence of the chemical analyzer, the nodes were not the natural nodes of the stick but were the metal ends of the stick. According to PW8 and PW9, when they had gone to the guest house, at that time, some clothes were lying down and there was a bed-sheet and nothing was seized in their presence. So, the police statement of accused producing the weapons were not proved by the Panchas.
24.8 The house of the accused Dhana Ranmal, was searched by the police in presence of the Panchas and PW18 submitted that during the search, no weapon was found. The weapon which was used in the offence was not found from the house and even the accused were not available at the home. Therefore, Nil Panchnama was drawn on 11.07.1989 between 23 to 23:30 hours. The Panchnama, the I.O produced at Exh.52.
24.9 The evidence of the I.O. PW18 also refers that after the original complaint Exh.49, further statement of the Page 66 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined complainant was recorded. In complaint Exh.49 dated 11.07.1989, the injury was recorded to be inflicted with the sticks which were in the hands of all the three accused. Exh.49 contains some interpolation as could be observed from the change of the color of the ink of the ball-pen, where the sticks have been described as with nodes. However in absence of cross examination, without the challenge to that aspect, much importance cannot be attached, but such fact becomes relevant when the I.O. had recorded further statement of deceased, to improve the case by bringing more weapons to the incident. Exh.54 is the dispatch note about the articles which were sent for chemical analysis and the description of the stick from accused Duda Dhana and Hardas Dhana shows the bamboo stick with nodes and the hoe was shown to have been received from accused Devrakhi Dhana and in the Exh.58, the chemical analysis report of Junagadh describes the stick having metal ring at the end.
24.10 In the further statement of the complainant, produced vide list, the clarification has been brought on record that in the complaint, it was recorded that Hardas Dhana, Devrakhi Page 67 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Dhana, Duda Dhana had stick with nodes, but actually, Hardas Dhana and Duda Dhana were armed with stick with nodes and Devrakhi Dhana was having hoe. It was also recorded that deceased got injured on the chest with stones. The complainant has got it recorded that since he got frightened, he could not give all these details.
24.11 To explain the use of weapon hoe, it has also been clarified that initially, the complainant had seen the handle of the weapon which he mistook it as a stick. This statement was recorded on 15.07.1989 and the complainant died on 17.07.1989 at 14:25 hours. The I.O. has not deposed that prior to recording the further statement of the complainant on 15.07.1989, he had inquired from the doctor about the condition of the injured victim to find out whether he was in a fit state of mind.
24.12 The I.O. also did not deem fit to get the dying declaration recorded of the injured through Executive Magistrate . The recovery of the weapons does not get proved. Presence of the blood of deceased on the stick and hoe would not be of much importance unless the weapons gets Page 68 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined corroborated by the hand prints or the chance-prints of the accused on the weapon.
24.13 The I.O. PW18 in the cross-examination stated that the place where the complainant was lying was four feet deep creek near the road. According to the I.O., since it had been the earlier night, they could not see blood in the creek and further stated that there was no water in the creek. He had not taken any certificate from the doctor of patient being fully conscious. Regarding the further statement, on 15.07.1989, the I.O. stated that the complainant had in his statement got it recorded that the injury was also with the weapon hoe and that in the earlier complaint, he has not stated about the injury with hoe. The I.O. further stated that in the statement on 15.07.1989, it was also recorded that the injuries on the chest were with stones and he had injury on the right hand fingers and clarified that the injury on the fingers as well as injury on the chest with the stones were not stated in the statement dated 11.07.1989 and the reason for not stating the same was that the complainant got terrified. The I.O. also stated that he did not deem fit to get the statement recorded Page 69 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined of the complainant before the Executive Magistrate. 24.14 The I.O. also stated that he had not undertook any proceedings in regard to the motorcycle, but has made reference in the Panchnama about the condition of the motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that the injured had fallen along with the motorcycle in the creek. The I.O. stated that it was not necessary that entry should be made in the police station diary, as and when they had to leave the police station.
24.15 According to the I.O., since the injuries were not grievous, therefore, he had not initiated for the recording of dying declaration. He denied the suggestion that the complainant had fallen from the motorcycle, and, colliding with Khumansinh, he had filed a false complaint. The witness affirmed that there had been criminal cases between accused father and the deceased and also there was civil dispute between Khumansinh and accused father.
25. Khumansinh Balubha was examined as PW17. He was head-constable at the Police Station, Jamnagar in 1989. His Page 70 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined father's name was Balubha, who retired from the army. After the retirement, his father had received 16 acres land between village Saiwa and Vanavad. He stated that 16 acres would be considered as 40 vigas land. That land was given to Dhana Ranmal for cultivation and thereafter, the land was given to Karsan Ranmal. He stated that the land from Dhanabhai was given to Karsanbhai because Dhanabhai was not regular in paying the annual money.
25.1 According to him, Dhanabhai's intention was not proper and therefore, from Dhanabhai, he had given the land to Karsanbhai for cultivation. He stated that nothing had happened when he had given the land to Dhana Ranmal but when the land was given to Karsanbhai, Dhanabhai got offended and because of that, both of them had filed cases against each other at Bhanvad Court. When the incident had occurred, Karsanbhai was brought to Jamnagar Hospital and at that time, his son had come to this witness who informed that his father was beaten by the sons of Dhanabhai. The witness visited Karsanbhai in the hospital and had conversation with him.
Page 71 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 25.2 According to the witness, Karsanbhai was not in a position to talk much, but when he had reached near his bed, at that time, he had informed him that the children of Dhanabhai had gone beyond limits and had informed him that he was beaten excessively. He came to know later on, that during treatment, he died. He identified the accused in the Court.
25.3 In the cross-examination, the witness PW17 stated that from 1979 to 1989, he was having his job at Jamnagar. From 1978 to 1982, he was serving at Jhodiya. Lakhatba Karansinh is his mother. He has good relation with his mother. His father had received the land after his military service and that he had filed a civil suit in Bhanvad Court against Dhanabhai, at that time, the present incident had occurred. The witness could not remember that after the death of Karsanbhai, Dhanabhai had withdrawn the suit, however, stated that no judgment had come in the suit.
25.4 He denied the suggestion that the suit was by Dhanabhai for the sale-deed. He denied the suggestion that when the Page 72 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined father had received the land, that land was sold to Dhanabhai at Rs.11,600/- and the land was of new tenure. He denied the suggestion that inspite of paying full consideration, the land was usurped from Dhanabhai.
25.5 In the year 1979, PW 17 job was at Aerodrome. He denied the suggestion that actually the land was sold to Dhanabhai, but in concert with Karsanbhai, the land was taken away from Dhanabhai and handed over to Karsanbhai for cultivation. He denied the suggestion that he has misused the status of head-constable and had often got Dhanabhai arrested. He denied that he had got a false case registered against Dhanabhai through Mudiben Dayabhai and Bhima Naran. He affirmed that Dhanabhai had filed a defamation case against him and Alshi Ranmal. He does not remember of having recorded in the police statement about his conversation with Karsanbhai, who told him that the children of Dhanabhai had beaten him. He denied the suggestion that actually Karsanbhai had met with a motorcycle accident and a false case has been lodged against the accused.
26. Having considered the deposition of Khumansinh Page 73 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Balubhai, the witness being in police department, who had filed case against the father of the accused as well as he was facing a defamation suit filed by the accused father is an interested person. The suit appears to have been filed for specific performance of contract and as suggested have been withdrawn after the death of Karsanbhai. From the evidence of this witness, the fact also becomes noticeable that Karsanbhai in the hospital was not in a position to speak fluently. In that condition, and, when the witness also does not remember his conversation with Karsanbhai, as recorded in cross- examination about witness stating that the deceased had informed him that the sons of Dhanabhai had beaten, then the very registration of the complaint becomes doubtful. The evidence of PW17 suggest that when he met Karsanbhai, he was not in a position to speak clearly. Then, the I.O has to explain and clarify how the complaint dated 11.07.1989 and the statement dated 15.07.1989 came to be recorded. 26.1 The complainant was brought at Jamnagar Hospital this witness PW17 was in service at the police station Jamnagar . The I.O. had not deemed fit to get the statement of the Page 74 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined deceased recorded before the Executive Magistrate. The doctor has not endorsed on the complaint that the complainant was in a fit state of mind, when he had given the complaint. The further statement on 15.07.1989 also becomes doubtful since there is no certificate from the doctor of patient being conscious and further of fit state of mind of the patient.
27. The documentary medical evidence was produced by PW14 Dr. S.G Mehta, who was called as a witness under Section 311 of the Cr.PC., Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar regarding the treatment of Karsan Ranmal. Exh.40 shows that the doctor P.S Trivedi, who had treated the deceased was very much available and the report which was sent by the doctor by fax referred to Dr. SG Mehta PW14, who was in his unit and therefore, Exh.40 was moved. Admittedly, PW14 had not treated the complainant in Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar, which he has admitted in his deposition. The documents which he had produced of the treatment on 15.07.1989, the day on which the further statement of the complainant was released in writing, records 'accidental injury' in the case papers. 27.1 Dr. Mehta PW14 was also referred to page no.21, 22 Page 75 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined dated 12.07.1989 of Exh.19, where on that day, Dr. AP Khatri had examined the patient and in that document too, it was recorded as 'accidental injury'. On that very same day, Dr. KD Vadiya had also examined the patient and he had also recorded it as 'accidental injury'.
27.2 The duties of court during the criminal trial was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnegowda (Supra) which is as under:
"It was held that during a criminal trial the court should always make an endeavour to find the truth. A criminal offence is not only an offence against an individual but also against society. There would be a failure of justice if an innocent person is punished. Therefore, the court must be able to perceive and consider both sides, namely the prosecution as well as the defence."
28. The witnesses examined by the prosecution in the form of relative witnesses have shown their interest in the conviction of the accused. The original eye witnesses have not uttered a word against the accused. Though they were in the tractor which was following the motorcycle of the deceased, the evidence of the person traveling in the tractor along with the evidence of the owner of the tractor suggest that they had not seen the accused at the place of incident, nor do they say that Page 76 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined the accused had beaten the deceased. In absence of corroboration from these witnesses who could be termed as independent person, the evidence of the son, uncle and nephew of the deceased could not be relied upon. Even the I.O's evidence is not free from blemishes. The conduct of the I.O. of handling the case from the inception even prior to the filing of the complaint creates doubt on the prosecution case. The complaint registered as well as the further statement of the complainant by the I.O also does not inspires confidence to place any reliance to consider it as a credible document. The witness PW17 Khumansingh Balubha working as a head- constable at Jamnagar Police Station, whose land was involved in the dispute, his evidence also becomes corrupt, owing to his interest in the result of the civil litigation of the land and the defamation case. The weapons alleged to be involved in the matter had not been proved, the recovery of those weapons at the instance of the accused was not proved by the Panchas as well as the I.O. The prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The observation of the learned trial Court Judge while convicting the accused does not appear to be consistent with the evidence recorded. The learned trial Page 77 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/649/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Court Judge had failed to discern, the true color of all the witnesses examined in the matter. The medical evidence in the form of documents as produced by PW14 shows that from the very beginning, before the doctor, the case was treated as of 'accidental injury' and the case appears to be converted into a murder trial by joining all the interested persons as a witness of the prosecution case. The learned trial Court's judgment of conviction and sentence becomes erroneous, which requires to be set aside and therefore, there would remain no case for the enhancement of the sentence.
29. In the result, judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar dated 29.04.2003 in Sessions Case No.77 of 1991 is set aside. The Appeal No.649 of 2003 is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. Bail bonds discharged. The Appeal No. 1484 of 2003 of the State stands dismissed. Record and proceedings, be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J) PARMAR KRISH Page 78 of 78 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 22:17:59 IST 2026