Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chamanji @ Gordhanji Himmatji Thakore on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 350 of 2000
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHAMANJI @ GORDHANJI HIMMATJI THAKORE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
MS SHACHI G MATHUR(3069) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 24/04/2026
JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI)
1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant - State of Gujarat under the provisions of sub-sections (1) & (3) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter be referred to as Cr.P.C. ) challenging the Judgment dated 30.11.1999 passed by the learned Additional Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar ( hereinafter be referred to as the Ld. Trial Court / Ld.ASJ ) in Sessions Case No.40 of 1998, whereby the Respondents herein were ordered to be acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 114 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 ( hereinafter be referred to as IPC ) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. It emerges from the record that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3-Himmatji Babuji Thakor has ex- pired. Hence, the present appeal qua respondent No. 3-Him- matji Babuji Thakor stands abated.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are as follows: The complainant-Jadiben is a resident of Motavas, Village-Por, Taluka:Gandhinagar. On 28.05.1998, during the night hours, while the complainant Jadiben was sitting outside her house along with her daughter Lilaben and daughter-in-law Hansaben, accused No.1- Chamanji @ Gordhanji Himmatji Thakore, who resides in the same locality, came there and demanded that water be diverted to his field. He asked the complainant to turn on the water-supply and arrange for the water. In response, Jadiben informed him that there was no electricity supply at that time and that the water would be supplied once electricity was restored. Upon this, accused No.1 became enraged and started abusing her. Thereafter, his elder brother, accused No.2 - Ambalal, who was accompanying him and was holding Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined a stick, inflicted a blow on the right knee of Jadiben. Accused No.4 - Kushkiben then threw a brick at Jadiben, which struck her on the mouth. Accused No.2 - Ambalal also inflicted a brick blow on the nose of Lilaben. At that time, Hansaben was present along with her infant son Kishan, aged about 8 months. Accused No.1 - Chamanji inflicted a brick blow on the head of the said infant Kishan, causing grievous injuries. During the course of the incident, Punjabhai Thakore intervened, upon which all the accused persons fled from the scene. As the complainant's son - Dineshji was out of station, he was called thereafter. The injured persons namely Jadiben, Lilaben, and infant Kishan were taken to Gandhinagar Civil Hospital for treatment. On the following day, Kishan was shifted to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital for further treatment; however, during the course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries.
4. Accordingly, FIR being I.C.R.No.145 of 1998 was lodged at Adalaj Police Station, Tal-Gandhinagar and investigation was carried out and ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused under Sections 302, 323, 114 and 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act before the Judicial Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. committed the said case to the Court of Sessions Court, Gandhinagar, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.40/1998.
Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined
5. On 06.08.1999, the learned Trial Court framed the charges at Exh. 3 under Sections 302, 323, 114 and 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Since, the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the said offences.
6. In order to bring the home the guilty of the accused, the prosecution has led following oral and documentary evidences:-
ORAL EVIDENCE Sr.No. P.W.NO WITNESS Exh.
.
1. 1. Deposition of Dashrathji Shakraji Thakore - 10 Panch of Scene of Offence
2. 2. Deposition of witness - Ambalal Atmaram Thakore 12 Panch of Inquest Panchnama
3. 3. Deposition of witness - Complainant - Jadiben 14 Manuji -
4. 4. Deposition of witness - Hansaben Dineshji Thakore 16
5. 5. Deposition of witness - Dr.Kirtikumar Tribhovandas 18
6. 6. Deposition of witness- Dr.Hasumatiben Ranchhodlal 22 Patel
7. 7. Deposition of witness-Hariji Somaji Thakore 24
8. 8. Deposition of witness-Bhupendrasinh Pruthvisinh 26 Rathod
9. 9. Deposition of witness-Jalamsinh Kachraji 29
10. 10. Deposition of witness-Kantibhai Somabhai Raval 31
11. 11. Deposition of witness-Head Constable - Amratbhai 32 Badarbhai Dantani Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined
12. 12. Deposition of witness-Police Inspector - 33 Dineshkumar Chhanabhai Patel DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr.No. EXH DESCRIPTION
1. 11 Scene of offence panchnama
2. 13 Inquest Panchnama
3. 15 F.I.R.
4. 19 Medical Treatment Certificate of Kishan
5. 20 Medical Certificate of Lilaben
6. 21 Medical Certificate of Jadiben
7. 23 Post-mortem Report
8. 27 Copy of station diary entry
9. 30 Recovery panchnama of weapons
7. After recording all the evidence and statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., were recorded and all the incriminatory evidence were put to them. They denied all the incriminatory evidences and took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in the crime. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence of accused persons. In order to prove their defense, the accused persons have examined Dineshkumar Manuji Thakore as D.W.1 at Exh.36 and Lilaben Manjuji Thakor as D.W.2 at Exh.37. Thereafter, hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence and having considered the arguments and evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidences, the Ld. ASJ acquitted all the accused of all the charges levelled against them by the Judgment dated 30.11.1999.
Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 30.11.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, the appellant-State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
9. We have heard learned advocates for the parties.
10. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, vehemently submitted that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the depositions of complainant-Jadiben Manujii and witness- Hansaben Dineshji Thakor recorded at Exhs.14 & 16, respectively. They supported the case of the prosecution; however, the learned Trial Court ignored the oral testimony of these two witnesses. It is submitted that the version of the complainant-Jadiben, and the witness-Hansaben is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in light of the oral evidence of the complainant-Jadiben, and the witness-Hansaben. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal deserve to be reversed.
11. Per contra, Ms.Sachi Mathur, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 4 vehemently submitted that there are material contradictions in the version of complainant-Jadiben and witness-Hansaben. There are contradictions regarding time and place of the incident. It is Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined submitted that even the FIR has not been proved. The Investigating Officer has proved the FIR registered at Sr.No.3 of the station diary, which came to be lodged by the accused persons herein. It is submitted that the accused persons have also lodged the F.I.R. being I.C.R.No.145 of 1998. The said fact has also admitted by the Investigating Officer in his cross- examination. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that the accused persons have also lodged the Cross-FIR. He also admitted that he has not recorded the statement of any independent witness. It is submitted that in view of the cross- cases filed by both the parties against each other, the only independent witness could have brought the truth on record. It is submitted that the father of the deceased supported the case of defence and he stepped as a defence witness into witness-box. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly acquitted the accused persons from all the charges levelled against them. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the captioned appeal deserves to be rejected.
12. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates for both the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and also led 9 documentary evidence in order to prove its case. The prosecution has examined Mr.Dashrathji Shakraji Thakore as as P.W.1 at Exh.10. He is the panch-witness of the scene of offence. He has not supported the case of prosecution and has turned hostile.
Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined Another panch witness of scene of offence is Bhalaji Kalaji Thakore (Exh.11). The said witness has not been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution examined Mr.Ambalal Atmaram Thakore as P.W.2 at Exh.12. He is the panch-witness of the Inquest Panchnama produced at Exh.13. He has partly supported the version of the prosecution. He deposed that he had seen the body of 3 years old boy, but at the time of incident, the deceased was aged about 8 months only. Therefore, there is a material contradiction regarding the age of the deceased. The prosecution has examined Complainant- Jadiben Manuji Thakore as P.W.3 at Exh.14. She supported the case of the prosecution; however, there are material contradictions in her deposition, particularly with regard to the time and manner of the occurance of incident. In the complaint, she stated that the accused persons came and assaulted her and her family members. However, in her examination-in-chief, she deposed that when the accused first came, they demanded the key of the borewell and hurled abuses, and thereafter, they returned armed with sticks and bricks and assaulted her and her family members. The complaint is silent on this aspect, thereby creating a material inconsistency in her version. She also admitted in her cross- examination that the accused persons initially came at about 18:00 hours and thereafter returned at about 21:00 hours; however, in the complaint, she merely stated that the accused persons came and assaulted her. She further admitted that, at the time of the incident, other persons had gathered at the place of occurrence; nevertheless, the prosecution has failed Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined to examine any independent witness in support of its case.
13. The prosecution has also examined Hansaben Dineshi Thakore, the mother of the deceased as P.W.4 at Exh.16. She deposed that the accused first came at about 18:00 hours and thereafter returned at about 21:00 hours, however, this ver- sion is again contradictory to the complaint lodged by Jadiben with the police. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she had not sustained any injury in the incident. She further admitted that, on the day of the incident, there was a mar- riage function in the family. She also admitted that the ac- cused, Ambalal Himmatji Thakore, had lodged a complaint against them. Additionally, she admitted that the police had not seized the clothes of her deceased son.
14. The prosecution has examined Dr. Kiritkumar Tribhovan- das as P.W.5 at Exh.18 and Dr. Hasumatiben Ranchhodlal Pa- tel as P.W.6 at Exh.22, both of whom proved the injury certifi- cates of the victims. The prosecution has also examined Harji Somaji Thakore as P.W.7 at Exh.24, who is a panch witness to the arrest panchnama; however, he did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Further, the pros- ecution examined Bhupendrasinh Pruthvisinh Rathod as P.W.8 at Exh.26, who deposed that he recorded the FIR of Jadiben at Sr. No. 3 of the station diary. The photocopy of the relevant pages of the station diary was produced and proved at Exh.27. A perusal of Entry No. 3 of the station diary reveals that the Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined complaint was, in fact, lodged by the accused- Ambalal Him- matji Thakore, against Jadiben. The said witness has not proved the FIR allegedly lodged by Jadiben.
15. The prosecution had examined Jalamsinh kachraji as P.W.9 at Exh.29 and Kantibhai Somabhai Raval as P.W.10 at Exh.31. They are the panch-witnesses of the recovery panchnama. They have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution.
16. The prosecution has examined Dineshkumar Chhanabhai Patel as P.W.12 at Exh.33. He proved on record that he conducted the investigation and after the completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused-Ambalal Himmatji Thakore has also filed the FIR against the complainant/first informant and his family members.
17. The defense has also examined the father of the deceased as D.W.1 at Exh.36. He partly supported the defense version. The defense has also examined the sister-in-law (foi) of the deceased-Kishan viz. Lialaben as D.W.2 at Exh.37. She supported the version of defense and she deposed that Kishanji Shanaji had expired owing to the illness.
18. Scanning the entire set of oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the parties, it emerges that both the Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined parties have filed cross-case against each other. Accused- Ambalal has filed the F.I.R. being I.C.R.No.145 of 1998 while Jadiben lodged the F.I.R. being I.C.R.No.146 of 1998. The said FIR was not proved on record. Further, from the record of the trial, it emerges that the cross-cases were not tried in accordance to the dicta laid-down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Nathi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1990 (Suppl) SC 145 & State of M.P. Vs.Mishrilal reported in 2003 (9) SCC 426. It also emerges from the record that there is a material contradiction regarding the time of occurrence of the incident. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness though Jadiben, Hansaben and Investigating Officer, in their cross-examination, admitted that at the time of incident, the other independent witnesses were also available. The Investigating Officer has also admitted in his cross-examination that he has not recorded the statement of any independent witness. When both the parties have lodged the cross-FIR against each other, In that facts and circumstances of the case, the deposition of the independent witness becomes material to bring the truth on record, but that was not done in the present case. All the panch-witnesses have not supported the version of the prosecution even the recovery panch-witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the version of the prosecution. When panch- witnesses turned hostile, the Investigating Officer can prove the recovery and the content of the panchnama, but scanning the oral testimony of the Investigating Officer, it emerges that the Investigating Officer has also not proved the contents of Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined the panchnama. Hence, the recovery was not proved on record. Scanning the defence witnesses i.e. the father of the deceased-Kishanji & Lilaben, sister-in-law (Foi) of the deceased also supported the versions of the defence.
19. Thus, in light of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution as well as defence, the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused persons from all the charges levelled against them.
20. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
21. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined trial Court. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged.
22. In the instance case, learned APP failed to point out any cogent and incriminating evidence against the accused persons, which may connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415. The relevant observations made in the said judgment are as under:-
Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined "..... (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
23. Applying the aforesaid principle as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa ( supra), it is apparent Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined on record that no credible evidence had been produced by the prosecution, which may connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused persons from the challenges levelled against them.
24. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Judge committed no error in passing the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
25. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 30.11.1999 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bonds of the accused, if any, stands discharged. R & P be sent back to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith. No order as to costs.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) (MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) GIRISH Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026