Gujarat High Court
Nasimuddin Fakruddin Kazi vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1208 of 2006
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1216 of 2006
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 561 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=========================================
NASIMUDDIN FAKRUDDIN KAZI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
MR SAURIN A SHAH (791) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIJAY PATEL for the Applicant in CRRA 561/06
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 01/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal no.1208 of 2006 is by original accused nos.1 and 2, while Criminal Appeal no.1216 of 2006 is by original accused nos.3 and 4, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.6.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case no.75 of 2003.
Page 1 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined 1.1 The accused came to be convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short), and were sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months, while were acquitted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506(2) and 307 of the IPC.
2. Criminal Revision Application no.561 of 2006 is filed by the original complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short) praying for enhancing the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and to convict the accused for the offences to which accused came to be acquitted. 2.1 Learned advocate Mr Vijay Patel submitted that the Prayer has been made to enhance the sentence imposed by the trial court to maximum punishment for the offence under section 325, read with section 34 of IPC and for convicting the accused for the offence under section 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506(2), and 307 of IPC. Page 2 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined 2.2 It was contended by Advocate Mr. Patel that in acquitting the accused the sessions court has not considered the clear evidence of head injury which was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The head injury was grievous which discloses the intention of the assailants and that the defence side has not been able to bring evidence to create doubt, Advocate, Mr Patel stated that the complainant had received fracture injuries on fingers and several injuries on other parts of the body, he was operated. While making efforts to save his head, received injury on hands, but could survive thus submitted that the cumulative effect of the evidence indicates intention of the accused for committing murder of the petitioner. Advocate Mr Patel stated that the conclusion of the learned Judge becomes erroneous on record, to observe that if the assailants wanted to commit murder they could have driven the vehicle on the complainant. Mr Patel stated that the punishment recorded is lesser in comparison to the grievousness of the matter and submitted that the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the accused under section 307 of IPC and ought to have punished under section 326 of IPC with the maximum Page 3 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined sentence.
2.3 Section 372 of the CrPC gives right to the victim to prefer an appeal against an order passed by a court acquitting an accused or convicting for lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The proviso to Section 372 came into force wide effect from 31.12.2009. the present Revision Application is of year 2006. Section 372 of CrPC has not been given a retrospective effect. Here the prayer is made for enhancing the sentence and convicting the accused under section 326 of IPC with the maximum sentence.
2.4 Having noticed the provision under section 401 of CrPC of the High Court's Revisional power, Sub-section (3) clearly restricts the High Court to convert the finding of an acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the prayer of convicting the accused under Section 307 or Section 326 of the IPC would not be maintainable in the revisional jurisdiction.
2.5 The scope of Section 397 of CrPC is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or perversity Page 4 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined which has crept in the proceeding. The prayer is also made by the complainant regarding the insufficiency of the sentence. In the case of Gopal Singh vs State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 7 SCC 545, the Supreme Court was examining the question of sentencing. In para 18 and 19 it was held as under:-
"18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect -- propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner. We may Page 5 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self- adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment.
19. A court, while imposing sentence, has to keep in view the various complex matters in mind. To structure a methodology relating to sentencing is difficult to conceive of. The legislature in its wisdom has conferred discretion on the Judge who is guided by certain rational parameters, regard been had to the factual scenario of the case. In certain spheres the legislature has not conferred that discretion and in such circumstances, the discretion is conditional. In respect of certain offences, sentence can be reduced by giving adequate special reasons. The special reasons have to rest on real special circumstances. Hence, the duty of the court in such situations becomes a complex one. The same has to be performed with due reverence for the rule of law and the Page 6 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined collective conscience on one hand and the doctrine of proportionality, principle of reformation and other concomitant factors on the other. The task may be onerous but the same has to be done with total empirical rationality sans any kind of personal philosophy or individual experience or any a priori notion."
2.6 Section 397 Cr.P.C. is for "calling of records to exercise powers of revision" of this Court. The said power can be invoked under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of inferior Court and when calling for such record, may direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended and if the accused is in confinement, that he shall be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Section 401 Cr.P.C. refers to the High Court's power of revision, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"401. High Court's powers of revision.-- (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Page 7 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Court of Session by section 307, and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of Justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a applicant of appeal and deal with the same accordingly."
2.7 In the case of Sheetala Prasad & Ors. v. Sri Kant & Anr., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 190, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the revisional power and the proper mode to be exercised by the High Court and the scope of interference, where the revision preferred is Page 8 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined by the private complainant (State or accused have not preferred any appeal). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorized the cases, where revision preferred by the private complainant would become maintainable. It has been held in Paragraph 12 as under:-
"Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of a private complainant-
(1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence, and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law."
3. Here in the matter, the prosecution case is that all the accused, in order to carry out their common intention, formed an unlawful assembly, and due to enmity arising out of separation from the profession of advocacy and Page 9 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined keeping a grudge in connection to the offence registered against Advocate Naim Kazi at Valsad City Police Station, with an intention to commit murder of the complainant, on 15.1.2002 at about 17:00 hours, near Atul Chanvai Road, near Ambamata Temple, when the complainant was going towards Valsad on his motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-15 AA-5787, hit him with a jeep, and it was stated that from another jeep bearing registration no. GBS - 9998, all the accused got down and assaulted the complainant with pipes and sticks, causing fractures in both legs and inflicting grievous injuries. 3.1 The said complaint was initially registered with Valsad City Police Station and then transferred to Atul Police Station. The investigation was carried out by Police Inspector, Rameshbhai Dhanjibhai Faldu who had drawn Panchnama of the place of offence and took statements of the concerned witnesses. He sent the sample to FSL and then handed over the further investigation to Shri B.J. Shahi. Thereafter, on 8.5.2002, the accused were arrested and the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet before the competent Court, which culminated into Page 10 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Criminal Case no. 1482 of 2003.
4. Heard Mr. Saurin Shah, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP for the respondent - State.
5. Mr. Saurin Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellants-accused assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, contended that the same suffers from serious errors of law as well as misappreciation of evidence on record. Mr. Shah submitted that the learned Trial Judge has failed to evaluate the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and has erroneously recorded a finding of guilt against the appellants. 5.1 At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Shah would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Advocate Mr. Shah contended that even if the entire evidence is taken at its face value, no offence, much less the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, can be said to have been proved against the Page 11 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined appellants.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Shah has argued that the prosecution has placed reliance solely upon the testimony of interested witnesses, while deliberately withholding independent witnesses who were admittedly available at the scene of offence. It is pointed out that, as per the case of the prosecution itself, at the relevant point of time, workers of Atul Chemical Industries were present near the place of incident, as it was closing time of the industrial unit. Despite such a situation, none of these independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, thus, submitted that this omission is fatal to the case of the prosecution. According to learned advocate Mr. Shah, when independent witnesses were available and yet not examined, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the prosecution. It was further contended that there existed prior enmity between the complainant and the appellants, and therefore, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
5.3 While fairly conceding that conviction can be based on Page 12 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined the testimony of injured witnesses, learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that such evidence must be wholly reliable, cogent, and must inspire complete confidence. In the present case, the evidence led by the prosecution is neither trustworthy nor free from doubt. It was submitted that where the evidence does not inspire confidence, it is always safer to seek corroboration from independent sources. In the absence of such corroboration, the learned Trial Court ought not to have based the conviction upon such shaky evidence. 5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Shah has took the Court through the medical evidence and has submitted that there are material inconsistencies between the medical and ocular versions. Referring to the deposition of the complainant - Jiyauddin Miranmiya Kazi, it was submitted that the complainant has stated that he had disclosed the names of the accused persons before the doctor at the time of treatment. However, this version is not supported by the medical officer, Dr. Vijay Khatri, who has categorically stated that the complainant had only informed that he had sustained injuries due to a quarrel and had not Page 13 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined disclosed the names of any assailants. 5.5 Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that Dr. Vijay Khatri has opined that such injuries could also be sustained in an accident. According to learned advocate Mr. Shah, this aspect assumes great significance and creates a serious doubt as to whether the injuries were caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution or were the result of an accidental incident. It is therefore contended that the prosecution has failed to establish a clear nexus between the alleged assault and the injuries sustained by the complainant.
5.6 Learned advocate Mr. Shah has thereafter drawn attention to inherent contradictions in the version of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has stated that he was riding a motorcycle when the accused persons came in two jeeps and assaulted him with sticks. The complainant has further stated that he was wearing a helmet at the time of the incident and that the helmet was broken during the assault.
5.7 It is submitted that neither the helmet nor the motorcycle Page 14 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined had been recovered by the investigating agency from the scene of offence. Even the complainant has admitted that he did not make any inquiry regarding the recovery of these articles. The Investigating Officer (PW-6) has also admitted in his deposition that no such recovery was effected. According to learned advocate Mr. Shah, this creates a serious dent in the prosecution case and renders the version of the complainant doubtful. 5.8 Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that the testimony of PW2 - Jayesh Hiralal Panvala, who had allegedly shifted the complainant to the hospital, is in direct contradiction with the complainant. It is submitted that this witness has deposed that a scooter was lying at the scene of offence, whereas the complainant has consistently stated that he was riding a motorcycle. This contradiction goes to the root of the matter and creates serious doubt regarding the manner in which the incident had taken place.
5.9 It is further submitted that this witness PW2 has admitted that he did not inquire about the incident from the complainant while taking him to the hospital. He has also Page 15 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined expressed inability to recollect where his statement was recorded by the police. According to learned advocate Mr. Shah, this shows that the witness is unreliable and his testimony does not support the prosecution case. 5.10 Learned advocate Mr. Shah has also heavily relied upon the deposition of the Investigating Officer, PW-6 Rameshbhai Dhanjibhai Faladu, to point out glaring lapses in investigation. It is submitted that no helmet allegedly worn by the complainant has been recovered, the motorcycle allegedly used by the complainant has not been seized, the clothes worn by the complainant at the time of incident have not been recovered and that no evidence regarding ownership of the motorcycle has been collected. It is further submitted that statements of nearby workers, including those of the sawmill, have not been recorded and no independent eyewitnesses have been examined despite the presence of public and traffic at the relevant time.
5.11 It is submitted that these lapses clearly indicate that the investigation is perfunctory and incomplete, and the benefit of such lapses must go in favour of the accused. Page 16 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined 5.12 Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further referred to the deposition of PW7 - Investigating Officer - Bhimbahadur Jangbahadur Shahi, and has submitted that despite the accused being taken on remand, no weapons allegedly used in the commission of offence have been recovered. It is further submitted that though the prosecution alleges that the accused came in two jeeps, no such vehicles have been recovered or traced during the course of investigation. This, according to learned advocate Mr. Shah, further weakens the prosecution case. 5.13 It is thus submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case through reliable, cogent and convincing evidence, and the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in placing reliance upon such doubtful evidence to record conviction.
5.14 Learned advocate Mr. Shah has therefore submitted that the learned Trial Judge has materially erred in appreciating the evidence on record and has wrongly held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Page 17 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Penal Code. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and unsustainable in law.
5.15 Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that though the learned Judge has framed the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 149 r/w sec. 149 of IPC, the charge is defective, inasmuch as, the charge refers to only four accused. There is no reference in the charge about these four accused forming unlawful assembly with any absconding accused, namely, Naimuddin Fakruddin Kazi. Thus, the framing of charge being against four accused, without those four accused forming unlawful assembly with unknown persons, the charge under Sections 147, 147, 148 is not prima facie emerging from framing of the charge.
5.16 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the medical evidence in its proper perspective.
5.17 The size of CLWs 2 x 1 cm clearly renders the evidence of the complainant about infliction of blows by stick and Page 18 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined pipe doubtful. Considering the nature of weapon, namely, stick and pipe, there bound to be injuries of more length and width than the one which are found. As regards injury on head there is no description and as it is presented to be blunt injury, what was the size and nature of that blunt injury is not emerging on record. Similarly, injury no. (iii) reflects fractures of 4 th and 5th fingers and thumb and there is no external injury reflecting the size and nature of injury whether it is contusion, or contused lacerated wound or abrasion. This merely describes fractures of bones of thumb, 4 th and 5th fingers.
5.18 Thus, considering the entire medical evidence and nature of injuries, the complainant's evidence about infliction of blows by accused with pipe and sticks is not prima facie substantiated. Furthermore, it is the case of the complainant that there were wheel-marks on his body is also not supported by the medical evidence. It is alleged that Nazim had inflicted pipe blow on head but as complainant had put on helmet and he had raised his hand he had sustained injury on hand by pipe. It is Page 19 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined further alleged that Nazim had snatched the helmet and inflicted second blow on head which he warded off by raising left hand and pipe blow felt on left hand. Thus, according to the complainant pipe blow had not landed on head and both blows sought to be inflicted by Nazim felt on his hand. There are no external injuries on left hand of the complainant when it is alleged that he sustained injuries on left hand while trying to ward off pipe blows being inflicted by Nazim.
5.19 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that it is also emerging from the evidence of the complainant that the accused lzhar was driving jeep and he had tried to kill him by driving jeep and hence he turnoff his motorcycle and escaped from that place towards Atul Police Station. It is further the case of the complainant that after going a distance of about 15 ft. another jeep came from opposite side and left side door of the said jeep was opened and at that time he dashed with left side door and he fell down. It is the case of the complainant that from this jeep Nazim Fakru, Vasim Fakru and Vasim Nazim got down and they started assault with pipe and sticks. Thus, one Page 20 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined thing clearly emerges that the complainant had accidentally collided with left side door of the jeep on its opening and he had fallen down. This aspect would clearly explain the nature of injuries on both legs viz., CLWs of 2 x 1 cm. The medical evidence clearly probablize the injuries being received in an accident. Thus, considering the nature of medical evidence and the evidence of the complainant who is having inimical relations with the family of the accused, the version of infliction of blows suggested in the manner by the complainant is highly improbable.
5.20 Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that though the incident took place at about 5.00 p.m. on a public road where there are number of shops and even temple and the complainant also admits that number of persons had also assembled, no single witness is examined to substantiate the case of the complainant. 5.21 Learned advocate Mr. Shah contended that similarly, the evidence of Jayesh Hiralal Panwala (PW.2/Exh.47) makes the evidence of the complainant highly unnatural and improbable. The witness has not witnessed the incident, Page 21 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined but he is the witness who had taken the complainant to the hospital of Dr. Vijay Khatri and he had seen vehicle of the complainant lying on the road still he had not learnt anything about the incident at the place of offence and he also did not inquire from the complainant as to how the incident took place. Thus, soon after the incident, the complainant has not disclosed the happening of the incident to witness Jayesh.
5.22 Thus, the learned Judge, while appreciating the evidence of the complainant, ought to have taken into consideration that the complainant is a lawyer and he has animosity with the family of the accused and, more particularly, advocate Naimuddin Kazi who is closely related to the accused. There is no other circumstantial evidence corroborating the case of the complainant. The evidence of the complainant cannot be considered to be wholly reliable and when his evidence is not consistent with medical evidence and nature of the injuries, the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 325 of IPC is absolutely illegal and unwarranted. 5.23 Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it is Page 22 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined submitted that the appellants were not enlarged on bail during the trial and have already undergone substantial period of imprisonment, having remained in custody since 02.04.2004 against the sentence of two and a half years. It is therefore prayed that this Court may consider the period already undergone by the appellants. 5.24 In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shah has prayed that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court be quashed and set aside.
6. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has strongly opposed the appeal and has supported the prosecution case by contending that the learned Trial Court has erred, in acquitting the accused of the graver offences and in awarding a lesser sentence, despite cogent, reliable and convincing evidence available on record.
6.1 It is submitted by learned APP Mr. Mehta that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the complainant had sustained a head injury in the course of Page 23 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined the incident, which stands duly proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that even if the said injury is not classified as grievous or life-threatening, the nature and location of the injury clearly disclose the intention of the assailants. Drawing attention to the deposition of the complainant at Exh. 38, it is submitted that the complainant has consistently stated about the assault on the vital part of the body, and the defence has failed to bring on record any material to discredit or create doubt regarding this aspect.
6.2 The learned APP Mr. Mehta has submitted that the complainant had also sustained multiple injuries, including fracture injuries on his fingers and other parts of the body, for which he had to undergo surgical intervention. It is further contended that such injuries were sustained while the complainant was attempting to shield his head from the assault, which ultimately enabled him to survive. According to the learned APP, the cumulative effect of these injuries, when read in light of the manner of assault, clearly indicates that the accused had the requisite intention to cause death of the Page 24 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined complainant.
6.3 The learned APP Mr. Mehta has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in drawing an adverse inference by observing that if the accused had intended to commit murder, they could have used their vehicle to run over the complainant. It is contended that such reasoning is speculative and contrary to the evidence on record. Referring to the deposition of the complainant at Exh. 38, it is submitted that immediately after the incident, several persons had gathered at the spot, which prevented the accused from carrying out any further assault. It is submitted that this explanation is plausible and has not been discredited in cross-examination, nor has the defence led any evidence to rebut the same. 6.4 The learned APP Mr. Mehta has also assailed the quantum of sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the learned Judge has committed a serious error in awarding only three years of rigorous imprisonment to the accused despite the fact that the complainant had sustained grievous injuries, including fractures on both legs, necessitating surgical treatment. Page 25 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined It is contended that the nature of injuries clearly falls within the ambit of grievous hurt, and the same were inflicted by dangerous weapons such as pipes and wooden logs.
6.5 It is further submitted by learned APP Mr. Mehta that though the learned Trial Court has accepted the use of weapons by the accused, as reflected in paragraph 22 of the judgment, there is inconsistency in referring to the weapons as "sticks" instead of pipes and wooden logs, which is contrary to the evidence on record. According to the learned APP, this misreading of evidence has resulted in awarding a lesser punishment than what is warranted in law.
6.6 The learned APP Mr. Mehta has therefore contended that the offence made out against the accused squarely falls under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence imposed ought to have been proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
6.7 It is further submitted by learned APP Mr. Mehta that the prosecution has successfully established the motive on Page 26 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined the part of the accused to commit the offence. The evidence of the complainant, which has been believed by the learned Trial Court while recording conviction, remains unimpeached and trustworthy. Once the testimony of the complainant is accepted, there was no justification for the learned Trial Court to dilute the nature of offence or reduce the quantum of sentence. 6.8 In sum and substance, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Mehta has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court insofar as they relate to acquittal for graver offences and imposition of lesser sentence are erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record and require interference by this Court. 6.9 It is therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to modify the impugned judgment and order by holding the accused guilty for the offence under the appropriate graver provisions, and by enhancing the sentence in accordance with law.
7. The charge framed below Exh.24 in the Sessions Case no.75 of 2003 was against four accused, accused no.1 - Page 27 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined father and accused nos.2 to 4 - sons. The charge was that all the four accused in furtherance of their common intention, harbouring the enmity, owing to the complainant's disengaging himself from the practice of advocacy with accused no.1, and of filing offence before Valsad City Police Station against advocate - Naim Kazi on 15.1.2002 at about 17:00 hrs. at Atul - Chanvai Road, opposite Ambamata Temple, while complainant was traveling on his motorcycle towards Valsad, dashed him with one jeep, and thereafter, all the accused disembarked from another jeep bearing registration no. GBS - 9998 with pipes and sticks hit him and caused fracture on both the legs resulting into grievous hurt to be tried under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 of IPC.
8. The charge refers to two jeeps one dashing the complainant, and another jeep, wherein from all the accused alighted with pipes and sticks. One jeep is unknown, while jeep from which accused got down is with the registration number. The weapons are pipes and sticks, and the injury is fracture on both the legs and Page 28 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined fracture of the lower bone of left thumb and 4 th and 5th finger.
9. In the background of the charge framed and the arguments raised, the judgment of conviction and sentence ordered by the Trial Court requires to be examined on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence led during the trial.
10. Dr. Vijay Nagindas Khatri was examined as PW4.
According to his evidence, Ziyauddin M. Kazi was admitted in his hospital on 15.1.2004. After he was admitted, the Doctor informed the police in the evening at 6:45 hrs., on the letter pad. The communication of the Doctor was produced at Exh.54. The charge refers to the incident occurring at 5 O'Clock in the evening and the Doctor informed the police by the communication Exh.54 at 6:45 in the evening.
11. In the letter dated 15.1.2004 addressed to City Police Station, Valsad, the Doctor wrote that Shri Zaruddin M. Kazi was admitted in his hospital on that day and he suffered fractures on both legs and left hand, such Page 29 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined injuries he suffered during a fight, thus asked the police to do the needful.
12. The document at Exh.54 does not reflect as to with whom the fight took place. The accused were not named by the complainant to the Doctor. The Doctor has not referred to the name of the accused. Even in the certificate of injury Exh.55 dated 21.1.2002, the Doctor while noting that Ziyauddin M. Kazi was allegedly assaulted with sticks and pipes, no reference is made of the names of assailants.
13. The medical evidence clearly refers to four injuries, they are
i) Two CLWs of size of 2 x 1 cm on right leg disclosing fracture of Tibia - Fibula;
ii) One CLW of 2 x 1 cm on left leg disclosing fracture of Tibia - Fibula;
iii) There was fracture on lower bone of left thumb and 4 th and 5th (small) fingers fracture;
iv) blunt injury to head. Page 30 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
14. The Doctor stated that on 16.1.2002, he operated the patient, who was discharged on 4.2.2002. No documents of operation are produced. The Doctor opined that injury nos.1 to 3 were grievous. In the cross-examination, the Doctor could say that Yadi was received at the Police Station at 19:20 hrs. The Doctor does not remember how the Yadi was sent. The Doctor stated that when any patient comes to the hospital, they would ask about the history of the incident and generally would ask about the place, where the incident occurred and how it occurred and who played what role, and when the patient would give the names of the assailant, they would write down the names.
15. The Doctor had noted about the person who brought the patient. The Doctor said that he cannot say, as to what type and how many injuries could be caused if a person is beaten with pipe and sticks. The Doctor also stated that he cannot say that in the circumstances referred, the complainant would have received more injuries than sustained. The Doctor opined that the injuries to the complainant were possible by at least four blow and not Page 31 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined more than that. Such injuries could occur even because of accident. The Doctor stated that the injuries cannot be said to have caused to any sensitive part. There was no possibility of death because of the injuries.
16. The Doctor, thus, opined that the injuries could be caused only by four blows. It could also be by accident. The injuries were not on vital part of body. Further, the evidence also records that the names of assailants were not given, further how the incident occurred was also not recorded by way of history.
17. PW3 - Shahidhussain Mohammad Hussain is the close friend of the complainant whose name has been referred to in the complaint, prior to the incident after meeting the police PW6 the complainant had gone to the house of this witness.
18. PW3 was examined as the Panch of the place of incident.
Police has called him on 16.01.2002 at 8 in the morning at Atul first gate police station, another Panch witness was Rakesh Mishra, the witness stated that Jayeshbhai (PW 2) was present there, from the Police Station they all Page 32 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined had gone to a place near Amba Mata temple. The place of Incident was shown to him by the police and PW2, which was between Amba Mata temple and Saw-Mill on the road from Valsad to Atul which was in the east-west direction. On the eastern side of the Temple was the Highway surrounding there were bakeries and ahead was road towards Chanvay were they saw stains of blood. Witness stated that blood stained soil was taken away by the police in a plastic bag. The witness also stated that Yamaha Motor Cycle was also lying there. The witness as Panch identified his signature on Panchnama Exh 49.
19. PW3 was cross-examined, initially he denied of any relation with the complainant stating that he only knew him as an advocate. Thereafter the witness admitted that on that day i.e. the day of incidence 15.01.2002, the complainant has come to his house in afternoon at 3 p.m. and stayed till 4:45 p.m. The complainant has come to his house in relation to the theft case of his son. He stated that he had not called the complainant but the complainant had come on his own. The witness further stated that he had not known about the incidence at 8 Page 33 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined o'clock in morning on 16.01.2002 but police had come to call him. The distance between, his house and Atul police station, was half a kilometer.
20. In the cross-examination, in context with the place of incidence, the witness stated that the motor cycle was lying on the western side of the road near the Saw-Mill beyond the road. The witness stated that he has not seen the helmet at that place. The deposition also reflects that there are many shops and houses near the place of incidence. In the cross-examination, the witness was asked about the cases lodged against him. The witness stated that he was not knowing of any case lodged against him in regard to duplicate biscuits at the Jalaram guest house and for that purpose arrest made. Witness also expressed his ignorance of the case registered under TADA at Anand Police State and the arrest thereto. The witness also feign his ignorance of a case filed by Afrozbibi Nazimuddin Kazi of Chanvai at Atul Police Station as II-CR No. 11/02 under section 506(2), 114 of IPC and Section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act. The witness admitted that he had given a complaint against Moin, Page 34 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Izhat and Naseem at Valsad City Police Station as II-CR No. 3005/02 on 09.01.2002. The witness stated that he was suspended from job as driver from Atul Company. The witness has admitted that there was a case at Vapi Police Station as I-CR No. 113/01 under section 387, 506(2) of IPC against him and other person. The witness denied of knowing any complaint filed by him against PSI Shukla. The witness denied of giving complaint against PSI KG Vaghela. The witness denied of any complaint by him against Sunil Sidhant of Atul Company filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.
21. The witness denied that in the morning of 16.01.2002, Jayesh Panwala has showed him the place of offence. The witness denied the suggestion that in the panchnama it had not got recorded of motor cycle lying at the place of incidence and admitted that in the Panchnama it has been recorded that the Motor Cycle was in the compound of Saw-Mill.
22. The police are duty bound to select independent unrelated person, and one free from bias to remain as Panch. Here the Panch is a dear friend of the Page 35 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined complainant. The Panch has criminal background. The complainant through this Panch witness was also against the accused of the present matter. The complainant had referred to the name of Shahid who is the Panch of the Panchnama in his complaint, whom he had met after meeting Investigating Officer - Faldu prior to incident. Inspite of that, PW3 - Shahid was taken as Panch of the place of incident.
23. Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365, would be a relevant judgment to refer for appreciation of oral evidence:-
25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or strait jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the Page 36 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an Page 37 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guesswork on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.Page 38 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross- examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."
[See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 728 : AIR 1983 SC 753] , Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [Leela Ram v.
State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 222 : AIR 1999 SC 3717] and Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. [Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., 1959 SCC OnLine SC Page 39 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined 17 : AIR 1959 SC 1012] ]
24. The complainant is an advocate by profession, he knows the provision of law, so would have certainly have the knowledge of giving right history to the Doctor from whom he received treatment.
25. PW1 - complainant - Ziyauddin Kazi was having his practice as advocate for last eight years in Valsad Court. On 15.1.2002, he had reached the Court in time and after completing his work at 12:30 in the afternoon, he had gone to Atul Police Station for his work on his motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-15 - AA-5787, where he met Police Sub-Inspector - Shri Faldu (PW6) and while he waited for his work at that time, C.P.I. - Shri Vaghela met him.
26. At 2:45 p.m., he went to visit his friend - Shahid PW3 residing at Atul and he was with this friend till 4.45 p.m. and again came back to Atul Police Station and left immediately to return to Valsad.
27. The unavoidable fact recorded is a mystery as to why the complainant had to visit Atul Police Station, he had even Page 40 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined met CPI - Vaghela, then again he went to Atul Police Station. The evidence of the complainant proves that prior to the incident, he had met the Investigating Officer of this matter PW6 - Shri Faldu. He had visited Atul Police Station twice on that day. From 12:30 p.m. to almost about 2:45 p.m., the complainant was at Atul Police Station. The complainant is not giving his cause to visit the Police Station twice prior to the alleged incident. He also does not clarify why he met PW3 his friend who had been selected as Panch of the place of incident.
28. Regarding the incident, the complainant stated that at about 5 O'Clock, he took a turn on his motorcycle at a place near Ambamata Temple at Atul - Valsad Highway Cross, at that time, one jeep had come behind him. The jeep driver had cornered him on the road side and when he saw in the jeep, were Izhar (A2) and Bhuriyo, Izhar (A2) was driving the jeep. He perceived that to kill him, the jeep was pushed towards him, so by taking a turn, he tried to run away on the motorcycle towards Atul Police Station. The complainant stated that he may have traveled about 15 feet and then there was another black Page 41 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined colour jeep bearing registration no. GVS - 9996, which the complainant stated that it was of the ownership of Advocate Naim Kazi. The jeep came near to him from opposite side, and the left side door of the jeep was opened and as the jeep side door struck the motorcycle, he fell down. The complainant - witness stated that from the jeep, Nasim Fakru, Wasim Fakru and Wasim Nasim alighted down, and from the earlier jeep, Izhar and Bhuriya came down. So, in total, according to the complainant, there were five persons present there, except the names of Nazim Fakru, Wasim Nazim and Izhar, none of the other two names get connected to the four accused, who were tried. Even the names of Nazim Fakru, Wasim Fakru and Izhar had not been stated as per the names of the accused recorded in the trial, which were (i) Nasimuddin Fakruddin Kazi, (ii) Wasimuddin Nasimuddin Kazi, and accused (iv) Izharuddin Nasimuddin Kazi, and the one another named is the (iii) accused Aheteshamuddin Nasimuddin Kazi.
29. The complainant - witness stated that in the hands of Nazim, there was an iron pipe, while rest of them had Page 42 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined wooden log in their hands who all had started beating him. The witness stated that Nazim exhorted saying that today he should not be left alive and thereafter, gave blows with the iron pipe on his head, but since he had worned the helmet and as he has raised his hand, he got injured at his hands. The witness also stated that Nazim had pulled down his helmet and gave a second blow on his head and to resist the blow, he had raised his left hand and he suffered injury on the left hand, which got fractured. Rest of the accused had beaten him on different parts of his body and gave blow on the ankle of both legs. The witness stated that as was 5 O'Clock in the evening and the workers from Atul Company had left the working place, so many had gathered there and therefore, the assailants had ran away, while running away from the place, Nazim and Izhar verbally abused him and had threatened him that if he would file any complaint, they would do away with his life. The witness stated that they had escaped in the jeep. The witness does not recollect registration number of the jeep, which was driven by Izhar. The witness further stated that the persons gathered there included Jayesh Panwala the Page 43 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Clerk of Vipul Kapadia, and as he knew him and therefore, along with others, Jayesh had taken him in rickshaw to Vijay Khatri's hospital. From the hospital, he had given a complaint.
30. Jayesh Hiralal Panwala was examined as PW2 who stated that he was having a job with Vipulbhai Vakil since last 19 years as a Peon. Thereafter, he started working as a Clerk and at the time of deposition, he stated that he was working as Computer Operator. On the day of incident at about 3.30, he had gone to Sub-Registrar Office at Pardi on his TVS Scooty. It was 15.1.2002 and he returned from the office at 4:45, at the place of incident, he had reached at about 5 or 5:15. The witness stated that the place of incident was opposite the compound of Chandrika Vijay Mills and when he reached the place, he had seen the crowd of people and in the crowd, he had seen Zahubhai lying down bleeding. Since Zahubhai was a lawyer, he knew him. The witness stated that the injury sustained by Zahubhai was on his legs, on the ground a watch had fallen, which he returned back to Zahubhai, the scooter of Zahubhai was lying on the side, he does Page 44 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined not remember the scooter registration number. He stated that since Zahubhai was injured, out of humanity, he had got him admitted to Dr. Vijay Khatri's hospital taking him by rickshaw. He had taken the assistance of Paritosh Bhatt to make Zahubhai sit in the rickshaw. The witness stated that he had not known anything about the incident. He had not inquired anything from injured Zahubhai about the incident. The police has recorded his statement.
31. This witness is a Clerk of an advocate. He had not seen the accused at the place of the incident, when he had reached the place, there was crowd and Zahubhai - complainant was lying down bleeding and his scooter was on one side. The witness, though being a Clerk to the advocate, had not inquired about the incident from the complainant and he states that he had not known anything about the incident. It becomes strange that the injured himself had not informed this witness about the assailant of which one of them was an advocate. This Clerk of the advocate, if he knows Zahubhai, he would certainly have known accused no.1 as advocate. Page 45 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
32. The complainant has stated in his evidence that he had started his practice with accused no.1 - Nayan Kazi in partnership for about four years and after that, leaving the joint practice, he had opened his office at Vapi with Rashidbhai Shaikh. He stated that because of that enmity, he was beaten. His client who was his friend Shahidhusain Mohammadhussain Shaikh - PW3 was also threatened outside the Court and for that reason, Shahid had given a complaint and in connection to that complaint, Izhar and Nayan Kazi were arrested by the police. The witness stated that harbouring suspicion that the complainant had got the complaint filed through Shahid and therefore, he was assaulted. In the present matter, he had given the complaint before P.I. Shaikh of Valsad City Police Station. The complaint was placed in evidence at Exh.39. He further stated that if the weapons are shown to him, he could identify them.
33. The crucial aspect in the investigation was that neither the weapons were recovered, nor the helmet of the complainant, nor his motorcycle, nor the clothes of the complainant were seized. Even the vehicles alleged to be Page 46 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined two jeeps, none of them had been seized, neither any Panchnama had been drawn of the jeep, nor there is any Panchnama of the motorcycle.
34. In the cross-examination of the complainant, it could be elicited that in the year 1999, there was some complaint against the complainant of assaulting the police. The complainant was arrested and released on bail. The complainant does not remember, apart from that, how many cases were filed against him, nor does he remember the interval between the complaints.
35. He further in the cross examination stated that on the day of the incident, he was not having his mobile phone with him. He denied of informing PSI Faldu at Atul Police Station through his mobile phone. The witness as a complainant stated that on the day of the incident, twice he had gone to Atul Police Station for his professional and personal work. The complainant also stated that he had given names of the assailants to Dr. Vijay Khatri and also stated the history before the Doctor. He does not remember as to what Dr. Vijaybhai had done about the names and the history. He does not know whether the Page 47 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Doctor had informed the police accordingly. He does not remember the time when he was admitted at the hospital, nor the time of the treatment. According to the witness, Doctor had not given him any sedative or painkiller injection. Within half an hour or an hour according to him after the treatment, the police had come. It was dusk and lights were on.
36. He stated that to record his complaint, Police Inspector Shaikh and his writer had personally come at the hospital. He does not remember whether others were present at that time. He stated that Police Inspector Shaikh had not inquired from him about the phone call of Dr. Vijay Khatri.
37. In the cross-examination, when complainant was asked about the place of incident, the witness stated that opposite the place of incident, there was a temple and a bus stand and at a distance of 50 ft., from the east side, there was a house. He stated that when he took "U" turn to go towards Atul, at that time, another jeep had come. He denied that at the time of the incident, there were divider on the road. He denied of any such divider on the Page 48 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined road from Atul to Valsad road. After taking the turn, he had traveled the distance of 15 ft. He stated that the jeep was brought straight, directly towards him, while denied the suggestion that the front part of the jeep had come opposite to his steering. The jeep was running towards Valsad and the left side door was opened while he was traveling towards Atul on the right side of the road. He denied the suggestion that after traveling 15 ft. by taking the turn on his motorcycle, he was on the wrong side, answering the same, he reaffirmed that he was on the right side of the road.
38. The controversy, which has been created is about the place of incident, which could have been proved by getting a sketch drawn, which has not been done by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer who had taken the further investigation from PW6 - Ramesh Dhanjibhai Faldu, was examined as PW7 - Bhimbahadur Jangbahadur Sahi who in his deposition has stated about the arrest made of the accused. The Investigating Officer stated that since the accused had not produced both the jeeps as well as the weapons and therefore, a remand Page 49 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined was asked from the Court, which came to be granted. He also stated that the fifth accused - Nazimuddin Fakruddin Kazi appeared as per the order of the Sessions Court and that fact was informed to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad by a Yadi. Thereafter, he had also given a Yadi to RTO, Valsad to convey the name and address of the owner of the jeep, bearing registration no. GBS - 9996. He had often raided the house of the accused and their dependents. On 18.04.2002, in Misc. Application no. 1763 of 2002, one day remand was ordered and on 08.05.2002, all the four accused appeared before him at 8.05 hrs., so he made their arrest and informed about the arrest to all the Police Station of the District. He has recorded the statements of all the four accused and as per the order of the High Court, the accused was sent to Court custody and against wanted accused - Nazimuddin Fakruddin Kazi, warrant under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was processed to be issued and on 29.04.2003, a charge-sheet was filed against all the accused.
Page 50 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
39. In the cross-examination PW7, the Investigating Officer -
Bhimbahadur Sahi, admits that the weapons are important evidence of the cases. Inspite of the remand of the accused, he could not procure the weapons. The Investigating Officer denied the suggestion that though no offence had occurred under Section 307 IPC, inspite of that, false charge-sheet was filed. The Investigating Officer also stated that he had inquired about the ownership of the vehicle. Jeep GBS - 9996 was of the ownership of Naimuddin Fakruddin Kazi who was not produced along with the charge-sheet. He had not recorded the statement of the RTO officer with regard to the same vehicle, nor the said vehicle was taken in custody. The witness stated that since both the vehicles could not be found and therefore, he had not seized them. The Investigating Officer denied the suggestion from the side of the accused that the jeep no. GBS - 9996 was not of the ownership of Naimuddin Fakruddin Kazi and also stated that Naimuddin Fakruddin Kazi is by profession an advocate and he had arraigned him as accused.
Page 51 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
40. This Investigating Officer also stated that he had not got the map of the place of incident prepared. The place of incident is adjoining N.H. no.8 and it was a State Highway. The FSL report shows that only blood stained soil was sent for examination, the Scientific Officer of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Surat had concluded of the presence of blood. The Investigation Officer was rather required to take the Panchnama of the two-wheeler of the complainant and should have called the local FSL to examine the two-wheeler of the complainant to find out the presence of any colour or metal scrap of the jeep involved. It is highly unfathomable that the Investigating Officer could not have found the jeep of the practicing lawyer. The statement of the RTO Officer was recorded and it was the suggestion from the accused that the jeep did not belong to accused no.1. The Investigating Officer, thus, was required to prove the ownership of the jeep alleged to have been involved. The complainant could state that there were two jeeps, but the evidence with regard to the alleged jeeps could not be brought on record, nor could be proved by any FSL report.
Page 52 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
41. PW6 as Investigating Officer Rameshbhai Dhanjibhai Faldu stated that when he was at Atul Police Station as PSI, on 15.1.2002, he received "0" number complaint from Valsad City Police Station, which was filed by the complainant Ziyauddin Vakil against the accused. Since the offence was registered at Atul Police Station, he had started the investigation. The Panchnama of the place of offence was drawn, which he identified at Exh.49. He stated that after recording the statement of witnesses, he had searched many places for the accused. From the place of incident, he directed to collect samples and sent for FSL report. The communication and the report were put in evidence at Exh.70 and 71. No further evidence has been led in the examination-in-chief of the Investigating Officer - Shri Faldu.
42. From the side of the accused no.1, when cross-examined, the Investigating Officer stated that after taking over the investigation, when he drew the Panchnama of the place, he had not seized any motorcycle or helmet from there. He had read the complaint prior to starting the investigation and it had come to his knowledge that the Page 53 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined complainant at the time of the incident had worn helmet. The witness stated that he had not inquired about the helmet from the complainant and had not seized the helmet from the place of incident as no such helmet was found there. The Investigating Officer affirmed that surrounding the place of incident, there was Ambamata Temple and many shops and houses. Having considered the time of incident, he could say that there would have been a larger frequency of vehicle, as well as of people. He denied the suggestion that he had not taken any independent Panchas from the place of incident. He denied the suggestion that the Panch - Sahid was friend of the complainant. The Investigating Officer affirmed, that in the complaint, the complainant had narrated that he had gone to visit Sahid at his house.
43. In the cross-examination from the side of the accused no.2, it had been recorded that the Investigating Officer had not recorded the complaint of the complainant after he received the "0" number complaint from Valsad Police Station. The witness affirmed that on that day prior to the incident, the complainant had visited Atul Police Station Page 54 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined around 11 in the morning. He had not recorded statement of any person in connection with the visit of the complainant at 10-11 in the morning at the Police Station. The Investigating Officer stated that he does not know as to why the complainant had come to the Police Station. The Investigating Officer also stated that at the place of the incident, there was complainant's motorcycle. He has not seized the motorcycle. He had also not seized the clothes of the complainant. The Investigating Officer stated that at the time when the Panchnama was drawn, he had not felt that the motorcycle was an important evidence to the matter. He had not inquired about the cause of the quarrel. The Investigating Officer stated that it was not disclosed during the time of the investigation, of complainant possessing a mobile phone.
44. From the side of the accused no.3, the Investigating Officer was cross-examined, wherein he stated that generally, the statements of all those persons who would be referred in the complaint, would be recorded. He does not remember the exact time of visit of the complainant Page 55 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined between morning 10 to 1 in the afternoon at the Police Station. The Investigating Officer stated that when the complainant had come, at that time, along with Investigating Officer was CPI - Vaghela Saheb.
45. From the side of accused no.4, when the Investigating Officer was cross-examined, he stated that he had not made any efforts to get the map or sketch of the place of incident prepared since he did not feel the necessity to do so. He had not procured any documents regarding the ownership of motorcycle. He had not recorded the statements of employer or employee of saw mill. The witness stated that he had recorded statement of Rameshbhai Jaganbhai of the saw mill and had recorded the statement of factory owners near the place of incident.
46. The crucial aspect, thus, becomes noticeable from the evidence of both the Investigating Officer that both of them had not felt the necessity to draw the sketch of the place of incident. The weapons which were alleged to be used in the incident had not been recovered. The vehicles in the form of motorcycle or both the jeeps were not Page 56 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined seized and most important evidence, the clothes of the complainant and his helmet were not seized during the investigation. The defence has been put that it was a case of accident and not assault. The only evidence that could be brought by way of FSL report is the blood cladded soil, where the evidence of the FSL does not show the blood group of the human blood found on the soil.
47. The complainant was confronted in the cross-examination about his mobile phone, which he stated that on the day of the incident, he was not having his phone and denied of informing Atul Police Station, PSI Faldu through his phone. The witness, as the complainant, was asked the reason for visiting Atul Police Station, but he failed to disclose the same, only by referring that, he had visited the Police Station for his advocacy and personal reasons. The incident occurs at a distance of one kilometer of Atul Police Station. The complainant stated that he had not inquired about his helmet and motorcycle and stated that he has no occasion to visit Atul Police Station thereafter to inquire about the helmet and motorcycle. The police Page 57 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined had not asked him about his helmet. The witness stated that it was full helmet with plastic covering on the side before his eyes and there was a lock system beneath the chin. The witness also stated that when accused - Nazim had pulled his helmet, at that time, he had not sustained any injuries since the helmet belt was not fastened. He does not know the owner of the rickshaw who had carried him to the Hospital nor recollects the person driving the rickshaw. Later on, he had not inquired about it, neither the police had asked him about the rickshaw.
48. In the cross-examination, the complainant was asked about his homely relation with Shahidhussain Mohammadhussain who has been examined as a Panch Witness PW3, which the complainant denied. The complainant, in his own deposition as well as in complaint, had stated that after visiting Atul Police Station, he had gone to his friend's house at Atul and he named his friend as Shahid. Inspite of that evidence on record, he denied. He denied the suggestion that he had no enmity with the accused. The complainant stated that his profession as advocate was with Naim Kazi and he is Page 58 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined junior of S.M. Kazi. He denied the suggestion that the injury he sustained was because of the accident.
49. In the further cross-examination from the side of the accused no.2, The complainant stated during that period of 2-3 hours between the incident and the recording of the complaint, he had remained conscious throughout and was in a fit state of mind to understand the nature and consequences. In the rickshaw, except Jayesh Panwala and the driver, no other person was present. The witness also affirmed that while giving the complaint, he had not made mention therein of informing about the incident to any other person. He does not remember whether his wife had visited him in the Hospital when was in the ICU.
50. In the further cross-examination, the complainant stated that when he was beaten, there were persons present there. He does not remember whether they were cart holders or shop keepers at the place of incident. The incident took place within 10 to 15 minutes, at that time he had shouted for help, but none had come forward. He was beaten for about 10 to 15 minutes with the sticks on Page 59 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined different parts of the body. He sustained injury, apart from his legs, on different parts of his body and there were signs of abrasions on his body. He had not seen the injuries of his body prior to reaching the Hospital, but had seen them prior to the treatment. He also got injured on the back side of his palm. His clothes were covered in blood. He has no information whether his clothes were seized by the police. He stated that he has not received back his clothes. The police had come to return his motorcycle at home. The complainant does not know whether there were any damage to his motorcycle apart from scratches. He denied the suggestion that since he had good relations with the police and therefore, the police had come to drop his motorcycle straight at his house. The complainant further stated that he had without any cause visited Atul Police Station twice on that day. He does not remember whether the police had brought helmet at his house. He was knowing Jayesh Panwala since 4 years prior to the incident.
51. The complainant stated that there was no straight dash with his motorcycle, and after he fell down, no attempt Page 60 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined was made to drive the jeep over him. He denied of saying that within that 10 minutes period, there were all circumstances to run the jeep over him. He was suspicious of assault when the first jeep had come. The witness stated that from the place of incident, the distance of Atul Police Station was of one kilometer and he had made attempt to rush his motorcycle to escape from the place, but clarified that before could do so, the second jeep had come and the persons in the jeep had stopped him. The left side door of the jeep was opened to make him fall down, but no attempt was made to drive the jeep over him.
52. He stated that he has no evidence to show the partnership with Nayan Vakil except the Vakalatnama in his name. He was not filing income-tax returns. He stated that he was sitting with Nayan Vakil since he was his relative. The cause of quarrel, the complainant stated, was his opening the office at Vapi with Rashid and the cause to beat him was the threat by Nayan Vakil through friend Shahid and further clarified that the accused or Naim had not beaten Shahid.
Page 61 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
53. The complainant denied the suggestion that because of the internal family dispute, a false complaint has been given and that he sustained injury only during accident. On further cross-examination from the side of the accused no.3, the witness stated that he had not given any proof regarding his ownership of the motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that he has not got it recorded in his complaint of motorcycle being of his ownership. He stated that the motorcycle was not of his ownership but it belonged to his brother.
54. In the cross-examination from the side of the accused no.4, the witness stated that he had gone from Valsad to Atul Police Station at 12:30 and had stayed there till 02:45. He has gone to the Police Station for his own personal reasons but he does not want to disclose the same. Shahidhussain was his client and therefore, he had gone to his house. Regarding the place of incident, the complainant was asked that within one minute, there was a frequency of 10 vehicles to pass on road, to which, he feign his ignorance. He also does not know that the place of incident was old highway no.8 which was at that time Page 62 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined known as State Highway. According the witness, from the place of incident, the national highway was at the distance of 2 kms. He does not know that near the place, there was a saw mill and besides the bus station, there was one citizen bakery. He does not know that near the place of incident, there is a dispensary of Dr. Maganbhai Desai. He denied the suggestion that a false complaint has been lodged and that he was not assaulted by pipes or sticks.
55. In the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365, the principles for appreciation of injured witness has been laid down for the Court to keep in mind. Paragraphs 26 and 27 become relevant, which read as under:-
26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind:
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real Page 63 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence.
In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of Page 64 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.
56. There can be no denial to the proposition of law that the evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value, on the ground that the witness to the occurrence himself got injured in the incident. The injured witness of the incident guarantees his presence at the scene of crime. There is always an assumption that the injured witness would not spare his actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone. Here, in the present case, the enmity between both sides runs deep. The professional rivalry with criminal background of the complainant and his friend Shahid - PW3 put the Court on guard to assess false implication.
57. In the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court Page 65 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined as under:
28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar [(1973) 3 SCC 881 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 563 : AIR 1972 SC 2593] , Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919 :
AIR 1975 SC 12] , Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681] , Appabhai v. State of Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 559 : AIR 1988 SC 696] , Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra [(1995) 6 SCC 447 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1113] , Bhag Singh [(1997) 7 SCC 712 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1163] , Mohar v. State of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 606 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 121] (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v.
State of Rajasthan [(2008) 8 SCC 270 :
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 472] , Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302] , Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 546 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630] and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] .]
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] Page 66 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined , where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under :
(SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) "28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell.
In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [(2004) 7 SCC 629 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2013] a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] ). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below."
Page 67 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
58. The defence had been put that the complainant sustained injuries by way of motor accident. Dr. Khatri could also affirm that the injuries suffered by the complainant could occur because of accident. The Doctor has ruled out the possibility of indiscriminate blows on the body of injured. No injuries were recorded in the form of abrasion or CLW or other parts of body, except the fractures referred.
59. The case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 was taken in view, to consider the reiteration of judicial approach to give special value to the testimony of injured accused. The law was summarized in the case of Abdul Sayeed (supra) in Paragraph 30:-
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of Page 68 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
60. Here the evidence of the complainant as an advocate is against his co-partner in the profession of advocacy. The complainant has made the advocate and all his three sons accused in the matter. The case is also drawn against one advocate Naimuddin Fakruddin Kazi shown as absconder to invoke the provision of Sections 143, 148, 149 of IPC. According to PW7, the Investigating Officer PSI - Bhimbahadur Jahi the jeep no. GBS - 9996 was of the ownership of Naimuddin Fakruddin Kazi. The charge refers to the enmity, as one case was filed against Naim Kazi at Valsad Police Station. The charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge does not refer to Naimuddin Fakruddin Kazi.
61. The conduct of the complainant for the whole day creates doubt, to the complaint, as alleged to have stated. Before the incident, twice the complainant was with PW6 PSI of Atul Police Station - Shri Ramesh Damjibhai Faldu. At first time, the complainant was with PW6 from 12:30 in the afternoon till 2.45 p.m. during that period, the complainant even meets C.P.I. Shri Vaghela. The Page 69 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined complainant does not want to disclose the reason for meeting the PW6 - Shri Faldu. Again, he visits Shri Faldu at 5 P.M. at Atul Police Station after visiting his friend Shahid (PW3). The complainant was with PW3 for the period almost 2:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. excluding the transit period. The incident is the place one kilometre away from Atul Police Station. Neither PW6 PSI Kaldu, nor PW3 the friend PW3 discloses the reason for meeting. The complainant had flatly refused to disclose the cause of meeting Shri Faldu on that day prior to the incident.
62. The complaint came to be recorded by PW5 - Gulab Saddik Abdul Rahim Shaikh since he visited the hospital as Doctor Vijay Khatri had given written information to Valsad City Police. The complaint was recorded by PW6 at Dr. Khatri's hospital as "0" number offence had taken place in the jurisdiction of Atul Police Station.
63. Before Dr. Khatri, the complainant did not disclose the name of the assailants. The complaint records incessant blows with wooden logs and pipe all over the body, however, no such external injuries as complained gets reflected in the testimony of Dr. Khatri or his certificate Page 70 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Exh.55.
64. The importance of ocular evidence and medical evidence has been referred in Abdul Sayeed (supra), which reads as under:-
39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.
65. The complaint was with the fact that the accused were trying to kill him, while in the cross-examination, the complainant has not supported or substantiated that intention of the accused. The weapon with which the injuries were alleged to have been caused are not coming on record. The clothes of the complainant, which could have supported the story of indiscriminate blows with pipe and wooden logs by the accused, were not produced by the complainant. Even Panchnama of the Page 71 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined complainant's motorcycle GJ-15 - AA-5787 was not recorded, while PW2 - Jayesh Panwala said that he had seen complainant's scooter on the side. PW2 is a Clerk to an advocate, he would certainly have known the difference scooter and motorcycle. The helmet of complainant does not find place during the trial nor the jeeps of the accused involved in the incident are proved.
PW2 - Jayesh Panwala and PW4 - Dr. Khatri were not informed about the incident, nor about the assailants.
66. The glaring fact is that after the "0" number complaint at Valsad City Police Station, registration of the same at Atul Police Station is not proved by PW6 - Faldu by any document, PSI Faldu could only state that the offence was registered at Atul Police Station.
67. Exh.59 and 60 are the communications of Valsad Police Station Exh.60 is by G.A. SHaikh PW5 as Police Inspector, Valsad Police Station, to Police Station office at Valsad Police Station of having recorded the complaint and instructing to register as "0" number complaint, to be sent to Atul Police Station. The time of recording the complaint is not stated in Exh.60, nor the complaint Page 72 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Exh.39 dated 15.1.2002 reflects any time on it of its being recorded.
68. Exh.59 is written by A.S.I. Shanker Raghubhai, Valsad Police Station City to Police Sub-Inspector, Atul Police Station with Javak no. 297/02 of sending criminal register no. 0/02.
69. At what time that complaint got registered at Atul Police Station does not get clear on record, however, the mention of the C.R. no. 3/02 could be found in the communication by the FSL to Police Sub-Inspector Atul.
70. The investigation was not thorough. Investigation by both the Investigating Officers appears to be shady. Except the soil stained with blood picked up from the place of incident, there is no other physical evidence. The FSL report also does not prove that the blood group on the soil was of the complainant or any of the accused.
71. Testimony of both Investigating Officer - PW6 - Shri Faldu and PW7 - Shri Sahi appears to be tainted with bias. The complainant's testimony shows his close relation with PW6. Even PW7 had gone to such an extent that he often Page 73 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined raided the house of accused and their dependents for Advocate Nazimuddin Kazi. Under Section 70 of the Cr.P.C., warrant was issued who appeared by the order of Sessions Court.
72. Ultimately, inspite of going to such an extent nothing was brought on record as Muddamal article so much so that the helmet weapons, vehicles, could not be found. The clothes of the complainant were not seized. The FSL or Panchnama report of the vehicle of the complainant could have been brought on record.
73. In context of the above observation, of suspecting the testimony of the witnesses and introducing false elements into the stories at the instigation of the police, the relevant observation made in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 in Paragraph 26 requires a special mention, the said observation is as under:-
26. Now what is the ground for suspecting the testimony of these two witnesses? The only other reason given by the learned High Court Judges is that they have introduced a false element into their story at the instigation of the police in order to save the Page 74 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined "face" of the lambardars. But if that is so, it throws a cloak of unreliability over the whole of their testimony and, therefore, though it may be safe to accept their story where the corroborative element of the bloodstained clothes is to be found, it would be as unsafe to believe, on the strength of their testimony, that at least five persons were present as it would be to accept that the ones who have been acquitted were present; and once we reach that conclusion Section 149 drops out of the case.
74. Learned advocate Mr. Saurin Shah for the accused had relied upon the judgment of Deepak Kumar v. Ravi Virmani & Ors., reported in (2002) 2 SCC 737 to stress upon the need of corroboration of testimony of interested witness by evidence of an independent witness when required.
75. Availability of independent witness of the place of incident is non-deniable fact. The incident alleged to have happened on highway, the place, where there were workers of the mill, shop owner. The place was opposite a temple. Not a single person from the place of incident has been examined as witness. PW6 - Investigating Officer stated that he recorded the statement of Rameshbhai Jaganbhai of saw mill and statement of Page 75 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined factory owner. None have been examined during the trial. Both the Investigating Officer and PW3 even PW2 were as per the record closely related to the complainant.
76. The appreciation of the evidence of related witnesses was dealt with in the case of Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591, wherein it was observed as under:-
32. ... It would be beneficial to recapitulate the law concerning the appreciation of evidence of related witness. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, (1953) 2 SCC 36 : 1954 SCR 145 :
AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1953 Cri LJ 1465] , Vivian Bose, J. for the Bench observed the law as under: (AIR p. 366, para 26) "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation.Page 76 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
77. The person who was immediately available on the spot was PW2 - Jayesh Panwala. He had seen the scooter of the complainant lying aside. PW2 had seen a watch of the complainant lying there, but not the helmet. PW2 gave evidence, that the complainant was injured at the legs. PW2 says of scooter but not of motorcycle. The complainant was conscious throughout, inspite of that, he had not said anything of the incident to PW2 who was knowing the complainant as well as accused no.1. This conduct of the complainant would become doubtful if considered by way of appreciating the evidence of PW2- Jayesh Panwala who becomes res gestae witness. In Section 6 of the Evidence Act, principle of res gestae has been explained. Reference with specific emphasis on the case of Balu Sudam Kholde (supra) of Paragraphs 47, 48 and 49 becomes relevant to consider, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
Page 77 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
47. The reason for referring to the aforesaid a piece of evidence is that PW 3 Nasir Rajjak Khan (Ext. 10) could be termed as a res gestae witness. This principle of res gestae is embodied in Section 6 of the 1872 Act:
"6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.--Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places."
48. In Sukhar v. State of U.P. [Sukhar v. State of U.P., (1999) 9 SCC 507 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 419] , this Court noticed the position of law with regard to Sections 6 and 7, respectively, of the 1872 Act thus : (SCC pp. 511-12, paras 6-7) "6. Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But for bringing such hearsay evidence within the provisions of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter. The aforesaid rule as it is stated in Wigmore's Evidence Act reads thus:
'Under the present exception [to hearsay] an utterance is by hypothesis, offered as an Page 78 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined assertion to evidence the fact asserted (for example that a car-brake was set or not set), and the only condition is that it shall have been made spontaneously i.e. as the natural effusion of a state of excitement.
Now this state of excitement may well continue to exist after the exciting fact has ended. The declaration, therefore, may be admissible even though subsequent to the occurrence, provided, it is near enough in time to allow the assumption that the exciting influence continued.'
7. Sarkar on Evidence (Fifteenth Edition) summaries the law relating to applicability of Section 6 of the 1872 Act thus:
'1. The declarations (oral or written) must relate to the act which is in issue or relevant thereto; they are not admissible merely because they accompany an act. Moreover the declarations must relate to and explain the fact they accompany, and not independent facts previous or subsequent thereto unless such facts are part of a transaction which is continuous.
2. The declarations must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely the narrative of a past.
3. The declaration and the act may be by the same person, or they may be by different persons e.g. the declarations of the victim, assailant and bystanders. In conspiracy, riot, the declarations of all concerned in the common object are admissible.Page 79 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
4. Though admissible to explain or corroborate, or to understand the significance of the act, declarations are not evidence of the truth of the matters stated.'"
49. The rule embodied in Section 6 is usually known as the rule of res gestae. What it means is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to form part of the same transaction" becomes relevant by itself. To form particular statement as part of the same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with the incident or substantial contemporaneous, that is, made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence.
78. The evidence of all the related witnesses, as specified hereinabove, starting from complainant, Panch and both the Investigating Officer, creates a doubt about the actual genesis of the incident. Was it pre-planned to falsely implicate the accused? Panch witness PW3 -
Shahid is a man who had filed complaints against police officers. The police appears to be working under the pressure of PW3 and the complainant. All the laxity in the investigation, by not bringing material physical evidence to corroborate the case of the complainant, can be considered for the inference that no such evidence was actually available. Weapons allegedly used have not been Page 80 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined proved. The jeep used by the accused is not proved.
Height of the matter is the clothes of the complainant, his helmet and his two wheeler are also not proved.
79. PW3 and the complainant had all the reasons to falsely implicate the appellants - accused. The case, as put up by defence of motor accident, cannot be ruled out when the Doctor's evidence do support the case of accident with the injuries sustained by the complainant.
80. Jayesh Panwala was the res gestae witness, but complainant had not informed him about the incident, nor had given the names of the assailants who were even known to Jayesh Panwala.
81. Next is Dr. Khatri, the complainant was conscious throughout, still he had not informed the Doctor about the history of the incident as well the name of the assailant.
82. The prior meeting of the complainant with PW6 -
Investigating Officer - Faldu and PW3 - Shahid as elaborated hereinabove appears to have laid the planning to drag the accused in the case, to see them Page 81 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined behind bars. And the planning is by the complainant as Advocate, the Investigating Officer and the friend of complainant examined as Panch who too had reason to put the accused in jail, as Criminal Case was lodged against him. The background of PW3 is criminal. The presence of the complainant at the place of the incident cannot be doubted, but the description of the event shows that the complainant must have met with motor accident. Jayesh Panwala's testimony and Dr. Khatri's testimony corroborate the defence version of motor accident, and when Jayesh Panwala and Dr. Khatri had no knowledge about the incident and were not knowing the names of the assailants, the complainant himself who was harbouring enmity with the accused cannot be believed. No reliance can be placed on the evidence of complainant as injured witness to convict the accused.
The circumstances brought on record during trial leads to give benefit of doubt to the accused, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court to the foregoing reason and to the proposition of law as summarized hereinabove becomes erroneous.Page 82 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1208/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Since the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the appeals are required to be allowed and when no case of conviction is proved, there would be no case for enhancement of sentence and hence, the revision of the complainant requires to be rejected.
83. In the result, Criminal Appeal no.1208 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal no.1216 of 2006 are allowed. Criminal Revision Application no.561 of 2006 is rejected. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.6.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case no.75 of 2003 is set aside.
The appellants-original accused are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. Bail bond stands discharged. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Maulik Page 83 of 83 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:55:07 IST 2026