Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Lakhman @ Lakhudo Arjanbhai Suva on 7 November, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 687 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LAKHMAN @ LAKHUDO ARJANBHAI SUVA & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR HARESH N JOSHI(1871) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 07/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 22.04.1999 passed by the learned Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter be referred to as "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No.166 of 1996, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused from the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w. Section 34 etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as "the IPC").
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 03.09.1996 in the morning, one security guard posted at Vijarkhi Dam, who found some unknown deadbody floating in the water and informed his colleague and in turn, they have informed the concerned jurisdictional police about the deadbody which was floating in the water. The police personnel reached to the sport and deadbody was brought out from the water and, thereafter, preliminary panchnama was drawn and then the deadbody was sent for autopsy. Upon information of the security guard, the Accidental Death Entry being No.26 of 1996 came to be registered and, thereafter, the investigation was handed over to one head constable and in turn, the same was handed over to the Police Sub Inspector and then the investigation was carried out. The concerned employee of the irrigation department has opined the concerned police officer that on causing fatal injury on the body of the deceased - Bhikha Natha and thereafter thrown in Vijarkhi Dam. The deadbody was kept for identification and during the identification, the brother of the deceased namely Virambhai has identified the deadbody that the same was of his brother. Accordingly, the FIR being C.R.No.134/1996 was registered before the Panchkoshi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w. Section 34 etc of the IPC.
2.1 Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the police started investigation and prepared inquest panchnama, deadbody was sent for autopsy, Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined prepared panchnama of the scene of offence, recorded the statements of various witnesses, seized the muddamal weapons and arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as Sessions Case No.166 of 1996.
2.2 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court vide Exhibit 3 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
P.W.1 Ratubha Keshubha Jadeja Exhibit 9
P.W.2 Parbatbhai Jivabhai Exhibit 11
P.W.3 Gagubhai Ravabhai Exhibit 13
P.W.4 Pinakin Dhanabhai Exhibit 14
P.W.5 Vajshibhai Markhibhai Exhibit 18
P.W.6 Polabhai Ratnabhai Exhibit 19
P.W.7 Ashok Mohanbhai Exhibit 20
P.W.8 Balvantsinh Jorubha Exhibit 21
P.W.9 Ranabhai Masaribhai Exhibit 22
P.W.10 Pankaj Vithaldas Exhibit 24
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
P.W.11 Rameshbhai Jerambhai Exhibit 26
P.W.12 Jayubha Muljibhai Exhibit 28
P.W.13 Gopalbhai Shanbhubhai Exhibit 30
P.W.14 Hanif Allarakha Exhibit 32
P.W.15 Dr.Satish Dinkarbhai Kalele Exhibit 36
P.W.16 Hansrajbhai Narshibhai Exhibit 44
P.W.17 Rasiklal Madhabhai Exhibit 46
P.W.18 Kirtikumar Gunvantrai Exhibit 47
P.W.19 Jitendra Savjibhai Gohil Exhibit 49
P.W.20 Ranmal Malubhai Exhibit 52
P.W.21 Rajuben Bhikhabhai Exhibit 53
P.W.22 Kanabhai Virambhai Exhibit 54
P.W.23 Dr.Harshaben Chatrabhuj Exhibit 55
P.W.24 Dalsukh Nathalal Exhibit 59
P.W.25 Somabhai Jethabhai Exhibit 61
P.W.26 Dhirubhai Hirjibhai Exhibit 62
P.W.27 Batuksinh Ratubha Exhibit 67
P.W.28 Hardasbhai Jethabhai Exhibit 75
P.W.29 Kantibhai Somabhai Patel Exhibit 76
P.W.30 Vikramsinh Vanubha Jadeja Exhibit 89
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence.
Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit
1 Panchnama regarding identification of clothes of 12
the deceased by Rajuben
2 Dog track panchnama 10
3 Map of the local area 16
4 Recovery panchnama of cloths of the deceased 23
5 Panchnama of ring and ashes of burnt clothes 25
6 Seizure panchnama of GDB-5087 of Ambassador 27
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
7 Seizure panchnama of champal 29
8 Panchnama of seizure of iron samples from 31
Ambassador Car No.JDB-5087
9 Inquest panchnama 33
10 Panchnama of the scene of offence 34
11 Short report 40
12 P.M. Report 39
13 Panchnama regarding recovery of weapons 45
14 Panchnama regarding recovery of cloths from the 48
water hole and panchnama regarding recovery of Rs.45,000/-.
15 Mmobile Laboratory FSL Report for taking sample 60 of GDB 5087 of Ambassador Car 16 Station Diary Entry No. 5/95 68 17 Station Diary Entry No. 15/96 70 18 Report of heavy offence 71 19 Special Report of heavy offence 72 20 Complaint under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. of PSI 77 K.S. Patel, Police Station 21 Arrest panchnama of Lakhman Arjan 78 22 The bloodstained soil seized from the original 79 place, bloodstained cart, temple soil and panchnama of the spectator being smashed.
23 Police Yadi of transferred crime 8024 FSL Analysis report, Junagadh of viscera of the 108 deceased 25 Diatom report of Biology Division 109 26 Analysis report of FSL Junagadh 111 27 Result of serological analysis 112 28 Analysis opinion of Physical Department, FSL 114 Junagadh 29 Copy of FIR registred by K.S. Patel 116
5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and have stated that they are innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal. This Court on 11.10.1999 admitted the appeal and issued bailable warrant to the respondents in sum of Rs.2,000/-.
8. Heard Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State of Gujarat with Mr.Haresh Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the original complainant and Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - accused at length.
9. Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant
- State of Gujarat has contended the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has contended that the prosecution has established the motive beyond reasonable doubt by oral evidence of the witnesses namely P.W. 5 - Vajshibhai Markhibhai at Exhibit 18 and P.W. 21 Rajuben Bhikhabhai at Exhibit 53. She has contended that the deceased Bhikha Natha, husband of P.W.21 was doing the agricultural work and as a broker, by getting amount of brokerage, he was maintaining his family. She has submitted that as per the say of P.W.21, on 01.09.1996 after taking the meal, the deceased left the house for the purpose of visiting Jamnagar city and at the time of Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined leaving home, the deceased was accompanied by his nephew and he left his uncle's home and went to hair cutting shop as deceased wanted to get his beard saved and stayed at hair cutting shop. She has also contended that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses clearly proved the guilt of the accused more particularly the motive and last seen together theory, however, the trial Court has disbelieved the facts of the case. She has further contended that though the prosecution has proved the theory of last seen together by examining the relevant witnesses, despite of this fact, the trial Court has completely ignored and disbelieved the case of the prosecution. She has submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error in discarding the evidence in a nature of recovery panchnama on a ground that the panchas have turned hostile and thus, their evidence was not believed. Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has emphasized upon the fact that the prosecution has established the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, however, the trial Court has disbelieved the case of the prosecution and discarded the evidence of the said witnesses, who supported the case of the prosecution. She has contended that the case rests on the circumstantial evidence and since the prosecution has proved the complete chain against the accused and tried to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and completely overlooked the circumstances which were proved. She has further contended that the prosecution has, while examining the witnesses i.e. P.W.5 and P.W.21, established the motive that the deceased has advanced certain amount to accused No.1 and, therefore, he was demanding the said amount, due to which, the accused have conspired to kill the deceased. She has contended that so far as the Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined money lend to accused No.1 is concerned, the prosecution has tried to prove the case that in presence of P.W.5, who has seen that deceased had given some currency note bundle to accused No.1, which fact was supported by the version of P.W.21, however, the trial Court has not considered the said aspect in its true and proper spirit. She has also contended that from the evidence of P.W.22 and P.W.26, who are the owners of hair cutting shop with regard to last seen together, however, their evidence was not believed by the trial Court and discarded the same. She has submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant has supported the submissions canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and contended that the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
11. Mr.Dagli, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and has contended that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and facts in passing the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the accused and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for. He has contended that the trial Court has, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, found the accused not guilty as the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. He has submitted that the prosecution has miserable failed to establish the case against the accused with regard to homicidal death though there was no direct evidence against the accused and in absence of any clinching and connective chain, the Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined prosecution has not established the circumstance against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While referring to the evidence of the witnesses, he has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused and even there was no complete chain and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the order of acquittal in favour of the accused. He has contended that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the judgment and order deserves to be confirmed.
12. We have considered the material placed on record and gone through the judgment and order of acquittal as well as record and proceedings. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.26, it appears that in their cross-examination, the case of the prosecution is completely washed out and there was no any clinching evidence with regard to the fact that the deceased had lent money to accused No.1 in presence of any of the witnesses. These witnesses have not stated anything that what amount had been lent to accused No.1 and what kind of currency note were given to accused No.1 and, therefore, there was no circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution before the trial Court. The wife of the deceased was completely silent on the said aspect. Whether accused No.1 was friend of the deceased and whether he was the very accused, who was referred by P.W.21 i.e. wife of the deceased. In absence of Test Identification Parade, on what basis, accused No.1 was involved in the case, such fact has not come forth before the trial Court. The accused No.1 is not resident of very village where the deceased was residing and this accused was referred as one Lakhubha of Village: Javangadh, but many Lakhubha were residing in Village: Javangadh, however, which Lakhubha was referred by the deceased or his wife was not established by the Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the judgment and order of acquittal is not established. So far as the last seen together is concerned, the prosecution has referred and relied upon the evidence of P.W.22 and P.W.26, but from their evidence also, the theory of last seen together was not established and there was no complete chain found from their evidence. We appreciate the evidence of P.W.15, who performed the autopsy of the deceased vis- a-vis P.W.21, who in her cross-examination has stated that at the time of leaving the home the deceased was served meal in nature of millet roti and bitter gourd vegetable. While performing the autopsy, it was not found in the stomach of the deceased and some different food were found. From the autopsy report, it appears that the exact time and date was also not confirmed that on very day the deceased leaving home along with the accused and during 1 st September to 3rd September, the dead body was found and at what time the deceased accompanied with the accused and at what time, the accused killed the deceased. Now, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the accused.
13. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence threadbare and has not committed any error of facts and law in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. The impugned judgment and order is not perverse one and the same is sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference at the ends of this Court. This Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning and ultimate conclusion reached by the trial Court.
14. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos. 42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in [2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
15. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
"20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:
"42. .... (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined (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 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.
(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.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their testimony. This Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/687/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained."
16. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 22.04.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.166 of 1996 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:16:27 IST 2025