Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Surendra @ Mandirka Jagdsisha God on 7 November, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1135/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SURENDRA @ MANDIRKA JAGDSISHA GOD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 07/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur in Sessions Case No.73 of 2003, whereby the respondent-accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 394 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant- State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short).
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:05 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1135/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. The complainant, along with his brother-in-law, was travelling in the general coach of the Ashram Express train from Ahmedabad to Delhi on 21.08.2001. At about 19:00 hours, between Mehsana and Siddhpur railway stations, while the complainant and his brother-in-law were having their meal, the respondent-accused, who was seated on the upper berth, sprinkled a poisonous powder into their food from a towel. As a result, the complainant became unconscious. Taking advantage of this situation, the respondent-accused robbed him of cash amounting to Rs.3,650/-, clothes, a bag, and a wristwatch. The brother-in-law also lost his belongings, including clothes, gold earrings, a school leaving certificate, documents, and a cheque of Rs.3,000/-. The offence was allegedly committed with the aid of two other persons, thereby attracting Section 114 IPC. Upon regaining consciousness at a hospital near Delhi, the complainant lodged complaints at different police stations.
2.2. The FIR was initially lodged at Ghaziabad Police Station (Exh.17) on 23.08.2001, followed by complaints at Mehsana (Exh.18) on 23.10.2001 and at Palanpur Railway Police Station (Exh.34) on 06.12.2001, under Sections 328, 394 and 114 IPC, bearing I-CR No.32/2001. The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palanpur.
Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:05 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1135/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined 2.3. As the Judicial Magistrate First Class lacked jurisdiction to try offences under the aforesaid sections, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha, and registered as Sessions Case No.73 of 2003 for trial. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the trial court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent-accused under Section 313 of the Code. The respondent-accused denied all allegations and claimed to be falsely implicated. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and submissions of both sides, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent-accused of all the charges.
3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Sessions Court. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses, and the details of the oral and documentary evidence are as under:
~:: Oral Evidence ::~ Sr. Particular Exh.
No. 1 Chandrakhar Rambabu Batham - 16 Complainant/Victim PW-1 2 Mahendrabhai (Brother-in-law) PW-2 25 3 Pravinbhai Babubhai Patel PW-3 28 4 Dilipsinh Ratansinh PW-4 33 5 Deepak Shantilal Vyas PW-5 36 Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1135/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined ~:: Documentary Evidence ::~ Sr. Particular Exh.
No. 1 Complaint lodged at Ghaziabad Police Station 17 2 Complaint lodged at Mehsana Police Station 18 3 Original complaint of the complainant 34 4 Panch nama for identity of accused 27 5 Medical records 31, 32
4. The learned APP appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the impugned judgment is unsustainable, primarily relying on the deposition of the complainant (PW-1 at Exh.16), which, according to the prosecution, establishes the act of sprinkling a poisonous powder into the food, resulting in unconsciousness and subsequent robbery. It was urged that the fact of loss of belongings and medical treatment near Delhi stands corroborated by the medical papers (Exh.31 and 32), and therefore, the learned trial court erred in acquitting the respondent-accused.
4.1. The learned APP further contended that the testimonies of the supporting witnesses corroborate the prosecution's version, and thus, the order of acquittal warrants interference.
5. Having heard learned APP for appellant - State and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the complainant's testimony suffers from inconsistencies and contradictions, which strike at the root of the prosecution case. A close scrutiny of the deposition of the complainant Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1135/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined (PW-1 at Exh.16) reveals that his three complaints (Exh.17, Exh.18, and Exh.34) narrate three inconsistent versions of the same incident. The first complaint (Exh.17), lodged on 23.08.2001 at Ghaziabad Police Station immediately upon regaining consciousness, describes that the accused offered him biscuits at Mehsana station, which, upon consumption, rendered him unconscious, following which he was admitted to Hindurav Hospital from Nizamuddin Station. However, in the later complaints (Exh.18 dated 23.10.2001 and Exh.34 dated 06.12.2001), the narrative shifts to a version of poisonous powder being sprinkled from a towel between Mehsana and Palanpur stations and treatment at Sadara/Ladara Hospital. The complainant himself conceded uncertainty as to which of the two incidents were actually occurred. Such irreconcilable discrepancies create serious doubts about the veracity of his evidence.
6. PW-2, Mahendrabhai, the complainant's brother-in-law, did not corroborate the towel-sprinkling theory, admitted regaining consciousness at Sadara platform, and failed to identify the perpetrators. No recovery of stolen articles has been effected. The identification parade (Exh.27) held nearly five months later lacks authenticity as PW-3, the panch witness, joined after the proceedings had already commenced, thereby vitiating its credibility. PW-4, who recorded the FIR, and PW-5, the investigating officer, merely deposed on formal aspects without contributing substantive evidence linking the accused to the crime.
7. Even though the complainant suffered loss of belongings and received treatment, the earliest complaint attributes unconsciousness to consumption of biscuits, while the subsequent versions drastically change Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1135/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined the manner of occurrence. Such contradictions, coupled with the delay of nearly two and three months in lodging subsequent complaints, render the entire prosecution case doubtful. The learned trial court, therefore, rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. The incident pertains to the Ashram Express train, wherein the accused, seated on the upper berth, allegedly flung a towel containing white powder upon the complainant and PW-2, rendering them unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, they found their belongings missing and subsequently lodged complaints. However, the evidence reveals that the complainant first lodged a complaint at Ghaziabad (Exh.17), immediately after regaining consciousness, stating that the unconsciousness was caused by consumption of biscuits. The subsequent complaints at Mehsana (Exh.18) and Palanpur (Exh.34) alter this version to powder sprinkling. The medical documents (Exh.31 and 32) pertain to Hindurav Hospital, whereas later versions mention Sadara/Ladara Hospital, without any corroborative hospital records. The inconsistent accounts, contradictory hospital names, and absence of corroborative recovery or independent witness testimony completely erode the prosecution case. The identification parade, held after several months and marred by procedural infirmities, further lacks evidentiary value. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's view being plausible and based on proper appreciation of evidence, no interference is warranted.
9. The Test Identification Parade conducted on 06.02.2003, nearly 17 months after the incident dated 21.08.2001, is wholly unreliable and Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1135/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined devoid of evidentiary value. The complainant (PW-1) identified the respondent merely by face, with the vague remark, "he was in the coach... powder fell after our meal," without attributing any specific act of shaking the towel or administering the substance to him. No prior description--by way of sketch, physical features, attire, or role--was provided in any of the three contradictory complaints: Exh.17, Exh.18, and Exh.34. The parade suffered from fatal procedural irregularities: PW- 3 admitted that it had commenced before his arrival; PW-1 had already seen the accused in court earlier; and no secrecy, screen, or proper dummies were employed. Moreover, the respondent was already in custody in connection with a similar case (Ahmedabad GR 144/2002), raising a strong possibility of prior exposure. In the absence of any recovery, FSL report, independent witness, or consistent narrative, the delayed, suggestive, and uncorroborated Test Identification Parade cannot form a reliable basis to disturb the well-reasoned order of acquittal.
10. At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: -
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415] "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1135/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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 emphasise 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."
11. In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 9 SCC 581] the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:05 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1135/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined "8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
12. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that the case of the prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) MVP Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:05 IST 2025