State Of Gujarat vs Ishwerlal Manilal Marwadi on 16 January, 2026

[Cites 27, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Ishwerlal Manilal Marwadi on 16 January, 2026

1. The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Page 1 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1993 dated 02.07.1997. The trial was conducted against six accused under Sections 302, 326, 147, 148, 149, 453 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C') and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Viramgam.

2. The complainant Nathaji Unjhaji (PW1) had given his complaint Exh.14 before PW12 - Manjibhai Dalabhai Patel, the Investigating Officer. The FIR was registered on 03.07.1992 at Viramgam Town Police alleging that on 02.07.1992, around 9:00 p.m., complainant's uncle's son Balsangji (PW3) and Ishwarlal Marwadi (A-1) got into a fight about falsely swearing, since the old quarrel of Marwadi and Thakore was going on and due to that enmity, around half past 11 at the night, when complainant's son - Madarji Nathaji (deceased) and another person Dhulaji Kachraji (PW4) were returning after watching a cricket match, they were intervened by the Marwadis near the temple of Ramdev Pir. The complainant came to know about Page 2 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined the incident from two ladies, so complainant and his another son - Rajuji Nathaji (PW6), both came near Ramdev Pir Temple and saw all the accused assaulting complainant's son. According to the complainant, accused no.1 wielded with sword, while rest of the five accused were having Dhariya (scythe) in their hands. As per the complainant, his another son Rajuji Nathaji intervened to save the deceased. He too got hit on the head. It was also stated that the accused were also assaulting Dhulaji Kachraji. All the three persons were covered in blood. As per the complainant, all the six persons ran away and police jeep arrived there and as three of them were injured, they were taken to hospital in the police jeep. Later, his son Madarji died at mid-night during the treatment. 2.1 The complainant stated that his son Madarji Nathaji sustained injury on stomach and face. His clothes were blood stained.

3. PW1 Nathaji P. Thakore, PW2 Amarsinh J. Thakore, PW3 Balsangji Laxmanji, PW4 Dhulaji Kachraji, PW5 Dr. Girish J. Parikh, PW6 Rajuji Nathaji, PW7 Vijuben Chehraji, PW8 Page 3 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined Mahendrakumar J. Koli Patel, PW9 Rameshkumar Devjibhai, PW10 Dr. Jayendra R Modi, PW11 Dr. Jayesh A Shelat and PW12 Manjibhai D. Patel were examined during the course of trial. Reliance was placed on the documentary evidences which are: PM Report Mark 13/13 at Exh.22, Death Slip Mark 13/12 at Exh.23, Injury Certificate of Balsangji Laxmanji Mark 13/6 at Exh.24, Injury Certificate of Dhulaji Kachraji Mark 13/7 at Exh.25, Injury Certificate of Rajuji Nathaji Mark 13/8 at Exh.26, Panchnama of Place of Incident Mark 13/4 at Exh.31, Inquest Panchnama Mark 13/2 at Exh.41, Injury Certificate by Dr. Jyendra R. Modi for Dhulaji at Exh.46, Injury Certificate by Dr. Jyendra R. Modi for Balsangji Laxmanji at Exh.48, complaint at Exh.55, FSL Report Mark 13/16 at Exh.58, Serological Report Mark 13/17 at Exh.59 and written arguments of complainant at Exh.94.

4. Learned Advocate Mrs. Rekha H. Kapadia, referring to a police report, submitted that accused no. 2 - Dahyabhai Jaisinghbhai, accused no.4 - Ishwarbhai Harilal, accused no.6

- Sakthanagji, died during the pendency of the appeal. They were ordered to be abated by order dated 25.08.2022 and Page 4 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined 20.10.2022. Hence, the present appeal would now be against accused no.1 - Ishwarlal Manilal, accused no.3 - Chandubhai Dargaji, accused no.5 - Kaduji Hemaji.

5. The present Criminal Revision Application No.442 of 1997 is under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, 1973, filed by the original complainant Nathaji Punjaji Thakore challenging the judgment of acquittal.

5.1 In the case of Sheetala Prasad & Ors. v. Sri Kant & Anr., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 190, 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 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 complainant-of a private complainant-

Page 5 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined (1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed inadmissible, aside as (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."

5.2 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, discretion, exercise any powers conferred on a in its of the Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a 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.

Page 6 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined (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 petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly."

5.3 In the case of Joseph Stephen & Ors. v. Santhanasamy & Ors., (2022) 13 SCC 115, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the provision of Sections 401(3), 378(4) and 386(a), wherein it was held that it was not permissible for the High Court to convert the finding of acquittal to one of conviction in its revisional jurisdiction as it is barred under sub-section (3) of Section 401.

Page 7 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined 5.4 The issue which got raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the accused by converting the finding of acquittal into one of conviction? Answering in negative, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that on a plain reading, sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Though the High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure, etc. however, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by the Court acquitting the accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the Trial Court and/or the first appellate court as the case may be. Therefore, in the present case, setting aside the order of acquittal under Section 302 read with other Sections of I.P.C as referred above and reversing and/or converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and consequently, convicting the accused, while exercising the powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C., would become perverse and Page 8 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined illegal.

5.5 Sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 372 and proviso thereto, which inserted by Act no.5 of 2019 vide effect from 31.12.2009, was considered by the Apex Court, as has been held in the case of Joseph Stephen (supra), if the High Court is satisfied that the application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies and if it is necessary in the interest of justice so to do so, then, for that purpose, the higher authority, by passing a formal order, may treat application for revision as a petition for appeal and deal with the same accordingly. Here in the present case, it does not appear so, that the applicant was under any mistaken belief. It also requires to mention that the State has challenged the acquittal judgment by filing the appeal. Advocate for the complainant has been permitted to assist the learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt. Under the provision of law, the Revision Application of the de-facto complainant, challenging under revisional jurisdiction the acquittal, being not maintainable, hence, consequently stands rejected. Page 9 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined

6. Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt submitted that the acquittal judgment is contrary to the provisions of law. The learned trial Court Judge has not taken into consideration the proved facts and evidence available on the record. The evidence of the witnesses have not been properly appreciated. APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that accused nos.2 and 4 had given Dhariya blows and accused no.1 had given a blow with the sword to deceased Madarji and such assault was with the intention to commit murder and thereby the offence under Section 302 was proved, inspite of that, the learned Trial Court Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence to convict the accused.

7. Learned APP Mr. Jyoti Bhatt also submitted that the learned Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused nos.2, 5 and 6 had injured Dhulaji Kachraji with Dhariya and accused no.1 had caused injury with sword and thereby has erred in not considering the case under Section 326 of I.P.C.

7.1 Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt submitted that the learned trial Court Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has Page 10 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined failed to prove that accused nos.4 and 6 had injured Nathaji with Dhariya and accused no.1 had cause injury to Rajuji Nathaji with a sword. APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the prosecution had proved the case that accused no.2 had cause grievous hurt to Balsangji Laxmanji Thakore and had committed an offence by putting a motorcycle on fire on the spot and had failed to appreciate the evidence on record that all the accused had formed an illegal assembly with an intention to commit murder of Madarji and to cause injury to Dhulaji Kachraji, Balsangji Laxmanji and Rajuji Nathaji and thereby had attacked the deceased and witnesses with deadly weapons and committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the I.P.C. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the accused had also committed the offence of breach of the provision of notification issued by the learned Additional District Magistrate under the Arms Act. It was contended by learned APP that though the identity of the accused were established, the learned Judge failed to appreciate the same. From the evidence on record though it was clear that the witnesses were knowing the accused and were familiar with each other, the learned Judge, considering it as an incident in Page 11 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined the dark, had erred by concluding that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the evidence of the eye-witnesses as well as medical evidence was required to be believed as the ocular evidence and the medical evidence are corroborated by the prosecution witnesses. The blood group of the deceased was found on the weapon which was also an established fact not considered by the learned trial Court Judge, thus, contended that the acquittal be set-aside and all the present accused be convicted for the offence.

8. The case as was raised by the prosecution was that the accused murdered complainant's son Madarji Thakore (deceased), injured Dhulaji Kachraji - PW4, Balsangji Laxmanji

- PW3 and Rajuji Nathaji - PW6. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant as well as the injured son Rajuji Nathaji had gone at the place of incident as they came to know of the quarrel between Marwadis and Thakores, through two women who had come near the house and had shouted about the incident, informing them about the quarrel. Page 12 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined

9. Advocate Mrs. Rekha S. Kapadia for the accused nos.1, 3 and 5 submitted that the case itself is highly improbable. The complainant though was present there, has not sustained any injury. The case of the prosecution is that the police jeep had arrived at the place of incident and thereafter the accused had ran away from the place. Advocate Mrs. Kapadia, thus, submitted that the accused were immediately available there at the spot, inspite of that, none of them had tried to apprehend them nor the police had arrested them on the place. Advocate Mrs. Kapadia submitted that the evidence of the injured witnesses also does not inspire any confidence. One FIR was lodged by one Raju alias Bharatkumar Bhudarbhai, who was Marwadi by caste, on the same day dated 02.07.1992, which was put in evidence at trial at Exh.64. The police had not made any investigation with regard to that where Bharatbhai Bhudarji had made a complaint that at 21:45 hours, he was alone going towards his house and near Jagatnaka, suddenly Madarji Nathaji Thakore, who is the deceased in the matter, had come before him with Bhala (spear) and had beaten him. Along with Madarji Nathaji, there was Dhulaji Kachraji Thakore, who had Dhariya in his hand. Page 13 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined Mrs. Kapadia submitted that the complaint also records that Diluji Cherahji was also there hiding nearby, who too had rushed with Dhariya on Bharatbhai Bhudarji. Hence, he started running and deceased Madarji Nathaji followed him who gave Bharatbhai Bhudarji a blow with Bhala (spear) on his right thigh and when he started shouting, suddenly Dahyabhai Jaysinghbhai (A2) and Ishwarbhai Manilal (A1) intervened and rescued him. The other two were abusing complainant with indecent utterance, and they along with the weapon, moved forward towards their street. The cause of the quarrel, according to the complainant Bharatbhai Bhudarji, was that his uncle had beaten those people and the cases were going on in the Court. Advocate Mrs. Kapadia, thus, submitted that the investigation has not been conducted in a fair and independent manner. The complainant Bharatbhai was injured. The I.O. was required to bring all details on record but has failed to do so. Mrs. Kapadia submitted that the evidence of PW4 as injured witness should not be believed as, though police was present there, he had not informed the police about the incident. PW3, the injured witness, had not named any of the accused nor had informed about the incident to any person. Page 14 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined

10. PW6 is the brother of the deceased - Madarji and was alleged to be injured by Saktha Nagjibhai, who is deceased. Advocate Mrs. Kapadia submitted that no case diary has been produced in the matter and further there was no entry in the station diary of the police. The police had taken the injured to the hospital, as actually the police was on the spot. Mrs. Kapadia submitted that the learned trial Court Judge has appreciated the case and has rightly disbelieved the injured witnesses, since the real genesis of the incident has not been brought on record.

11. Learned Advocate for complainant Mr. Pruthviraj Y. Gohil, for learned Advocate Mr. Saurin A. Shah has relied on the judgment of the case Rameshji Amarsinh Thakore v/s State of Gujarat to submit that minor discrepancies should not be considered and that eye-witness to a gruesome killing would not be in a position to narrate blow by blow account of the incident.

12. After hearing both the sides, we perused the record and the deposition of the witness along with the documentary Page 15 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined evidence. PW1 is the complainant who happens to be the father of the deceased - Madarji and injured Rajuji (PW6). He was at home on 02.07.1992 and according to him, at about 11:30 at night, near Ramdev Pir Temple of Viramgam, the incident had taken place. Two women had come near his house and had shouted saying that the accused were assaulting his son. Therefore, he and his son PW6 went near Ramdev Pir temple. The witness identified the accused in the Court. He stated that his son PW6 had gone earlier to him at the place of incident and thereafter, he followed him. The witness stated that accused no.1 was having sword in his hand, while rest of the accused were armed with Dhariya. According to him, they had also assaulted his son Raju - PW6. The witness stated that immediately police had come in its vehicle. His son deceased - Madarji was injured on the cheek of the left jaw and also sustained injury on the stomach. He stated that the accused had also beaten him on the waist and on both the legs below the knees. He could not specify the injury which his son Rajuji - PW6 sustained, but stated that he was injured below the eye. In the cross-examination, while the witness referred to the complaint, the accused had recorded Page 16 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined the objection and the defence lawyer had submitted before the trial Court Judge that the same could be considered while recording the deposition of the I.O. as probability of another FIR could be examined. Hence, the complaint was not put in evidence during the chief-examination of the complainant. 12.1 The complainant also stated that on the next day, he had shown the police the place of incident which was in front of Ramapir Temple. The witness identified the Muddamal weapons.

12.2 In the cross-examination, the complainant stated that his son Madarji was lying down on the ground. Blood was oozing out, but he had not made any efforts to make him speak. He had inquired from Dhulaji (PW4), who he stated was conscious. Two minutes after his reaching the place, PW3 had come there. He stated that police was sitting in the vehicle but he had not inquired the name of the police. The injured were taken in the police vehicle. According to the witness, there were about three to four police persons in the jeep and he had not informed the police about the incident nor had Dhulaji - Page 17 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined PW4 informed the police. He had gone by foot, walking to Gandhi Hospital which was at a distance of 20 meters. He remained there in the hospital for about half an hour, and, he had gone to the police station in the police jeep to file the complaint. Police was in the jeep along with him. The evidence of this witness does not bring the real facts into picture. Though four to five police persons were present there at the place of incident, none of them had tried to arrest the accused. Though the presence of the accused was alleged to be there, why the police was there at the place of incident does not become clear. The complainant had not named the accused before the police there. In the cross-examination, he stated that women who had come and had shouted about the incident, he had not named those women in the complaint. He also stated that he has not got it recorded in the complaint that his son Madarji was injured on the cheek on the left side of the jaw and the injury was also on the stomach and waist. He has also stated that he has not got it recorded in the complaint that his another son Rajuji sustained injury below the eyes. The learned trial Court Judge has not believed this witness. According to complainant, he had seen the assault on Page 18 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined his son Rajuji on the head, however, he had not stated so in the complaint. His son Rajuji (PW6) and Dhulaji (PW4), were sent to Ahmedabad for further treatment from Viramgam Gandhi Hospital. Till that time, he waited at the hospital at Viramgam.

12.3 PW2 Amarsinh Thakore is the Panch witness of the weapon. The Panchnama Exh.16 was produced in evidence of the weapons. Another Panch was his friend 12.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 9 SCC 164 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1155 has made the following observations:

"7. In a given case, the conviction can be based on the testimony of only one eyewitness. The law has been laid down on this behalf by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13 : AIR 1957 SC 614] . In paras 10, 11 and 12 of the said decision, this Court held thus : (AIR pp. 618-19) "10. ... On a consideration of the relevant authorities and the provisions of the Evidence Act, the following propositions may be safely stated as firmly established:

Page 19 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined (1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.

(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.

(3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.

11. In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that 'no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact'. The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's Law of Evidence -- 9th Edn., at pp. 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on Page 20 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognised in Section 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well recognised maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding Judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof . Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

Page 21 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial . There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution." Page 22 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined 12.5 PW3 Balsangji Laxmanji is the injured witness, who stated that he was at his home and at 9'0 clock night, Ishwarlal Manilal (A1) and Dahyabhai Jaysinghbhai (A2) had come on the road near his house when he was standing near his house. At that time, they asked him about Nathaji's son - Raju, informing that they wanted to beat him, so he asked them as to why they wanted to beat him. The witness could state that they went away after speaking abusive words. 12.6 Referring to the incident, PW3 stated that incident occurred at 11:30 at night. At that time, he was at his home and hearing the outcry, he had gone to the place of incident. He, in his deposition naming all the six accused, stated that they were there present beating Dhulaji Kachraji, Madarji Nathaji, Rajuji Nathaji. The witness further stated that when accused were beating them, he asked why they were beating. At that time, Dahyabhai Jaysingh (A2) gave him a forceful push with the Dhariya and he sustained injury at the ankle of his left hand and the witness stated that at that time, the police vehicle had come there. Seeing the police along with Page 23 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined their weapons, the accused ran away towards railway crossing and he returned back to his home. The witness further stated that since police vehicle was there, he came again and he and Jawanji put all the three injured in the vehicle, he went to Gandhi Hospital, where he also took the treatment. According to him, Rajuji (PW6) is not his real brother but a family brother. His grandfather was Kachraji and Rajuji's father was Nathaji (PW1) and Nathaji's father was Punjaji. He stated that Punjaji and Nathaji, both were real brothers. The relation of this witness with the complainant's side was brought on record.

12.7 The witness PW3 in the cross-examination stated that almost about 15 criminal cases were filed against him in Mehsana and he had also received a notice of 'Tadipar' and was also arrested under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'PASA'). He further stated that his father Laxmanji was residing at Viramgam and against him too, there were about 15 to 20 criminal cases. Almost about 15 to 20 days prior to the incident, he had come to Viramgam. The evidence of this witness could not be believed since he himself Page 24 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined is having a criminal mentality, facing 15 to 20 criminal cases. The fact of his returning back to his house even after the injuries sustained by others and thereafter returning back stating that police was there and inspite of the police were present over there, the witness though was injured, had not named the accused. He in the cross-examination stated that seeing the police jeep, he ran towards his house. 12.8 The evidence of the witness becomes doubtful as he appears to have been involved in the incident, but his role does not become clear. As per the cross-examination, there were about 70 to 80 residential houses of Marwadis near the Ramapir Temple and the incident had occurred on the road in the area of the Marwadi community. He had not taken any precaution to see that the accused, who had come there to inform him, would not assault as per threat, he had not prior in hand informed the injured-deceased nor the police of such threat .

12.9 According to the witness, at 9'0 clock night, A1 and A2 had come near his house and were inquiring about Page 25 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined complainant's son Raju. The distance between his house and Raju's house, as has come in the cross-examination, is only of 2 meters. Though these two persons had come to his house, calling upon him threatening that they would want to beat Raju and Raju was residing in his immediate neighbourhood, inspite of that, he had not informed injured Raju (PW6) about the threat of A1 and A2. Certain contradictions in his depositions were brought on record. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen any person assaulting and that he had not given the names of the assaulters to the police. He had not even informed the police about the weapon with which he sustained injury. He affirmed that he has not got it recorded in the police statement that he and Jawanji had placed the three injured in the police jeep nor had he got it recorded in the police statement that till the jeep left the place, he was at the place of incident. He stated that he had informed the police only about quarrel. The learned Trial court Judge has rightly not believed this witness. The witness is not a natural witness on whose deposition reliance could be placed, his conduct also was not normal if the deposition of this witness is analyzed in context with the complaint. He Page 26 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined appears to be a created witness.

12.10 In the case of Budhwa alias Ramcharan and Ors. v. State of M.P., 1991 Supp (1) SCC 9, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

"In the case of group rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency to rope in as many persons as possible as having participated in the assault by merely naming them. The Court, therefore, has in all such cases to sift the evidence with care.

12.11 In the case of Budhwa alias Ramcharan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, as under:

"4....This Court has in several decisions pointed out that "where there is enmity between the two factions then there is a tendency on the part of the aggrieved victim to give an exaggerated version and to rope in even innocent members of the opposite faction in a criminal case and that therefore the Court has in all such cases to sift the evidence with care and convict only those persons against whom the prosecution witnesses can be safely relied upon without raising any element of doubt", vide Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 79: 1972 SCC (Cri) 399: AIR 1971 SC 2156].

6. "Where an occurrence takes place involving rival factions it is but inevitable that the evidence would Page 27 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined be of a partisan nature. In such a situation to reject the entire evidence on the sole ground that it is interested is to shut one's eyes to the realities of the rural life in our country. It has to be borne in mind that in such situation easy tendency to involve as many persons of the opposite faction as possible by merely naming them as having been seen is a tendency which is more often discernible and has to be eschewed and, therefore, the evidence has to be examined with utmost care and caution and the Court has to adopt a workable test for being assured about the role attributed to every accused"

vide Muthu Naicker v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1978) 4 SCC 385: 1979 SCC (Cri) 14]."

13. PW4 Dhulaji Kachraji is the person who had gone with the complainant's deceased son Madarji Nathaji, as stated to watch cricket match. PW4 is the watchmen in a textile mill and was an elected member of the Municipal Corporation. He stated that on that day, he and Madarji had gone to watch cricket match at M.J. High School ground. It was a night tournament. They were returning at about 11:15 at night and near Ramapir Temple, all the accused were waiting with the weapons and according to him, accused no.1 gave a blow on the face of deceased Madarji with a sword. The deceased got injured on the left cheek. He further stated that accused no.2 Dahyaji Jaysingh gave a blow on the stomach of the deceased Page 28 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined with the hind sight of the Dhariya and accused No.4 Kishor Harilal also gave a Dhariya blow on the left waist of the deceased. According to him, at that time, Dahyabhai Jaysingh (A2) had burnt a motorcycle which was parked near the temple. The witness also stated that accused no.3 Chandubhai Dargaji gave two blows with Dhariya on his head and when he tried to restrain the blow, at that time, accused no.5 Kaduji Hemaji gave a blow with the Dhariya on the left upper arm and accused No.6 Saktha Nagji gave a Dhariya blow on the left leg thigh and thereafter, he fell down on the ground. He further stated that accused no.6 Sakthaji also assaulted him on his hips with the hind sight of the Dhariya. At that time, Raju came running there and the witness stated that all the accused also started beating him and Kishor Harilal accused no.4 had given Rajuji blow with the Dhariya as well as accused no.6 Saktha Nagji assaulted Rajuji with the Dhariya on his left leg. The witness stated that accused no.1 had given the sword blow on the face of Rajuji. The police, at that time, had come there, so all the accused ran away from the place. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that the day on which they were injured, it was Rathyatra day and there was Page 29 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined bandobast of police as well as SRP. When he had fallen down, he saw the police inspector who was present there and police was in the jeep. He had not informed the police about the incident nor had informed about the facts at the place. He stated that he could not state whether other persons had informed the police about the incident. He also stated that police had taken them in the hospital in the jeep. He had not informed the doctor the names of the assailant nor had he described the weapon with which he sustained injury. In the cross-examination, he affirmed that there were about 7 to 8 counter cases against each other and he was best friend of deceased Madarji.

13.1 In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Shakuntla, 2012 (2) RCR (Cri.) 845 SC, the Supreme Court attempts to substantiate the credibility of an interested witness, as per Court a witness is someone who has a direct or indirect interest in the accused, who has been convicted for a reason of animus or any other oblique motive. It is an agreed fact that the evidence of an interested witness is untrustworthy and must be verified before being accepted. Page 30 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined 13.2 Furthermore, as stated in State of Haryana Vs. Shakuntla (supra), it is widely accepted that interested witnesses want the accused to be convicted, hence judicial caution is essential when hearing such testimony.

13.3 The case becomes improbable that though this witness was a member of the Municipal Corporation and the police was present there, he had not informed the police about the incident, nor had he stated anything before the treating doctor about the assailant and the weapons. It appears that he was interested in giving the deposition as the deceased was his friend and many cases were filed against him from accused side. The witness cannot be considered as independent witness and further his evidence cannot become believable, since the conduct of the witness itself becomes doubtful. Though the police was present there, the police had made no efforts to arrest the accused.

13.4 In the cross-examination, he could state about the quarrel between the deceased and the Marwadis was with regard to land. According to the witness, Rajuji (PW6) was Page 31 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined with him in the jeep. He could not state whether Rajuji had informed the police about the incident. In the cross- examination, the witness was confronted about the assault at 9:45 night on 2nd July, 1992 on Bharat Bhudar, however, the witness had denied the same. The FIR about the assault on 02.07.1992 on Bharat Bhudar was placed on record at Exh.64, which suggests that some incident had occurred prior to the present complaint. The real fact has not been brought on record.

13.5 PW5 was the Medical Officer, Dr. Girish Parikh, who had stated of the dead body of Madarji Nathaji Thakore, brought at about 11'o clock in the morning on 03.07.1992 for postmortem. The doctor witness has referred to the recorded injuries which were about five in number and has also noted the fracture of both the legs of tibia and fibula. The doctor had also stated that when the dead body was brought before him, it was totally in a naked condition and therefore, had no occasion to observe the clothes of the deceased. In the cross- examination, the witness stated that the injured Balsangji Laxmanji had come without any police Yadi and in Exh.24, it Page 32 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined has not been recorded that police had brought him there. Even injured Rajuji Nathaji had come without any police Yadi and no endorsement was made in Exh.26 of he being brought by the police.

13.6 Referring to the medical case papers, he stated that though all the three injured persons had come before him, he had not made any endorsement of informing the police. The doctor also has failed in his duty of informing the police about the incident. There would be no denial about the injury sustained by the witness, but how and in what way and who caused the injury, does not become clear. More specifically, when police was though present there, none of the witnesses deemed fit to inform the police.

14. PW6 Rajuji Nathaji is the son of the complainant. According to him, at the time of the incident, he was at his home, during night time talking with his mother. At that time, he stated that two women came near their house and started shouting. One was Agraben and another was Vijuben. They informed while shouting that Marwadi people were beating Page 33 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined Dhulaji and Madarji. On hearing so, he and his father (PW1), running reached at Ramdev Pir Temple and he saw there initially that his brother Madarji was lying down in pool of blood and beside him, Dhulaji was also lying down at the spot with the blood splattered around. He stated that Marwadi people were there and they were beating his brother and Dhulaji. He identified the accused in the Court. 14.1 Referring to the weapons wielded by the accused, he stated that accused no.1 was having sword in his hand, while rest of the five were armed with Dhariya in their hands. When he intervened, accused no.4 assaulted him on the head with the Dhariya and another assault with the Dhariya was by accused no.6 on the ankle of his right leg. He further stated that accused no.1 gave a blow with the sword on his face, which injury he sustained from the middle of his nose towards the right eye.

14.2 He further stated that accused no.2 had pushed down a motorcycle which was parked there near the temple and burnt it and, at that time, police jeep had come and accused ran Page 34 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined away from the place. According to the witness, he and his brother Madarji as well as Dhulaji were placed in the police jeep by Balsangji and Jawansingh and they were taken to Gandhi Hospital. The preliminary treatment was given there and thereafter in the ambulance they reached to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. The witness stated that his brother Madarji died at the Gandhi Hospital and he stayed one day at Civil hospital, Ahmedabad and was discharged. The witness identified the sword and the Muddamal Dhariya.

14.3 The certificate at Exh.26 is by the Medical Officer, Viramgam which was placed in evidence by Dr. Girish J. Parikh (PW5). Dr. Girish J. Parikh had produced the injury certificate of the present injured and according to the doctor, Rajuji Nathaji was brought to his hospital at 0:30 am on 03.07.1992 without police Yadi and the following injuries were noted by the doctor :

1) IW 1" X ½" bone deep over left side of forehead.

2) IW 3" X ½" bone deep over left parietal region Page 35 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined 14.4 The document Exh.26, which is the injury certificate, though records that the victim witness was assaulted with the sword, he had not named the persons who had assaulted him.

Though they had gone in the police vehicle, there was no police Yadi for the examination of the victim. 14.5 According to the witness victim PW6 Rajuji, the Civil Hospital had not informed the police and it had not so occurred that police had come during his treatment by the doctor. PW6 stated that when he was having his treatment at Viramgam, he had seen the police, while had not seen the police at Civil Hospital on the next day where he was treated. The Viramgam Police had inquired about the weapon as well as assaulters, while police at Civil Hospital had not inquired from him. He had seen the police on the next day at Civil Hospital, but he himself had not informed anything to the police there. 14.6 According to the witness, though he was discharged from the hospital, he was not allowed to leave the hospital by Ramjibhai Kachraji and Khodaji Gulabji, who had come with him in the ambulance from Viramgam. He also stated that one Page 36 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined Balsangjibhai had also come at Civil Hospital. Balsangbhai, after having the bandage, was released from the hospital prior to him. He was discharged in the morning at about 10 or 11 hours, while Balsangbhai was discharged in the morning at 7 or 8 hours.

14.7 In the cross-examination of this witness Rajuji, a reference has been made of one Shivaji Nathaji, who was the relative of the witness Rajuji, who had come at the hospital on 05th July, 1992 at 7 in the morning and police had come at 10 to 11 in the morning. Since his father had given the complaint, therefore, they had not inquired from Shivaji Nathaji about filing of the complaint. The witness was not present when his father had given the complaint and he stated that the father had filed the complaint, and his father had not inquired from him as to who had assaulted whom.

15. The case, as has been drawn by the prosecution, would show that the complainant's father had come later on at the place of incident. As per the complainant-father, he reached the place after his son PW6 Raju. The evidence shows PW3 Page 37 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined Balsangji Laxmanji as a chance-witness, who alleges to have sustained injury but could not clarify his connection to the incident. He appears to be an embroiled witness where the prosecution had tried to bring the presence of accused no.1 and 2 at the house of PW3 bringing the case that accused nos. 1 and 2, prior to the assault at 11 to 11:30 night, they had reached the house of PW3 at 9'o clock night and had threatened to beat complainant's son Raju i.e. present witness PW6. The allegation was of beating PW6, while in the incident, the person who died is the brother of PW6, Madarji. PW6 has not stated about the presence of PW3. The person, who according to PW6, apart from him, injured was PW4, who was along with his deceased brother Madarji. PW4 Dhulaji is the member of the Municipal Corporation. The tainted criminal background of PW3 as well as PW4 had been brought on record by the defence.

15.1 So far, PW6 Rajuji's evidence is concerned, he in the cross-examination stated that he in his presence had not seen any assault on his brother, while stated that in his presence he saw two injuries inflicted to PW4. PW4 Dhulaji further stated Page 38 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined that two assaulted him, one was by Dhariya and another one was by the sword. The assault of the sword was on the face while one blow of the Dhariya was on the hip and when Dhulaji sustained sword injury on the face, he fell down. 15.2 According to PW6, the sword injury which he received below the right eye was given to him from the front side and when he received a Dhariya blow, he fell down on the ground.

16. The defence had placed the question in the cross- examination about the pant worn by this witness PW6 as well as PW4. Rajuji as PW6 stated that the police had not seized his pant. He stated that he received the treatment of the leg injury at Viramgam Hospital as well as Civil Hospital and a lot of blood was oozing out from the injury and he stated that his pant was blood stained and also affirmed that when he received the Dhariya blow, his pant also got a cut. In the same way, for PW4, for the injury which was given on the hips, the witness stated that PW4's pant also had a cut and blood was coming out of the injury and the pant was stained because of the blood.

Page 39 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined 16.1 Inspite of injury as well as the cuts on the pant and the blood stains affirmed by the witness, the police had not found fit to seize the pant of PW6, which he had worn at the time of the incident. It appears that the police along with the prosecution witness has tried to hide the real facts. The police has not brought the actual incident on record. The police was continuously with the prosecution witnesses. The evidence suggest that the police was present at the time of the incident. Inspite of that, the accused could not be arrested from the place of the incident.

16.2 The prosecution witnesses PW3, PW4 and PW6, who alleged themselves to be injured witnesses, had not made any complaint before the police. They had not named the accused who had given them the blow. The weapons allegedly used were also not disclosed before the police. The evidence on record would proof that even the witnesses had not named the accused to the doctor nor had they informed the doctor about the weapon with which they had suffered the injury. Page 40 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined

17. The evidence of PW6 through the cross-examination becomes doubtful. The prosecution witness have tried to create a case against the accused, by bringing false facts. 17.1 PW6 Raju stated that the accused who were involved had escaped towards Nilki Fatak. The police in the jeep had not gone after them to arrest the accused. The road towards Nilki Fatak was tar road.

17.2 The very crucial evidence which gets reflected in the cross-examination of PW6, where he states that, though police had asked them as to who were the assaulters, they had not given the names of the assaulters. He affirmed that when the police jeep had come, at that time, Dhulaji (PW4), Madarji, Balsangji (PW3), his father (PW1) and he himself were present there and out of them, none had given the names of the accused to the police. He also affirmed that Jawansingh, too, had not given the names of the assailants to the police. He affirmed that till the time they were taken to Ahmedabad for treatment, none from them had given the names of the assailants to the police. Till the time they were shifted to Page 41 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined Ahmedabad, except his father, none had informed the police about the incident. PW6 Raju's very evidence shows that his father had not inquired from him as to who had assaulted whom and with which weapon. So, the father, who actually had not seen the incident of assault to the deceased son, under whose instruction or information, had given the complaint to the police, does not become clear. The delay in filing the complaint itself shows that the prosecution case is tainted with fabrication and falseness. 17.3 The witness further clarified in the cross-examination that the doctor at Viramgam had asked him about the weapon with which he sustained injury, but he had not informed the doctor about the weapon. He stated that he had not told the doctor that he was assaulted by sword. Even the doctor at Ahmedabad had inquired from him about the weapon, but the witness stated that he did not reply about the weapon with which he sustained the injury. Non-disclosure of the actual facts, before the police as well as the doctor, who could be considered as independent person, itself proves that the prosecution witnesses were trying to hide facts and were Page 42 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined making all efforts to hide the actual occurrence.

18. It appears that after deliberation, the complaint came to be filed against the present accused, who had faced the trial.

19. In the cross-examination, it has come on record that there were many houses of the Marwadis in the neighbouring area and since very long time, there was enmity of the Marwadis with the deceased brother Madarji. PW6 stated that Marwadis had filed a case against him, his brother and as well as his father. There were almost about 7 to 8 cases against them and the accused in all the cases were the witnesses. 19.1 In the cross-examination, he was asked about Bharatbhai Bhudarbhai, the complainant of Exh.64 and PW6 denied of knowing that on that night, at about 10'o clock, his deceased brother Madarji had assaulted Bharat Bhudar with a Bhala (spear). He stated that he is unaware that there was a case filed for the incident that had occurred on that night and in that case, Madarji Nathaji (deceased), Dilujit Cherahji and Dhulaji Cherahji were the accused. He denied that at the time Page 43 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined of incident at Ramdev Pir Temple, there were bhajans organized by the Marwadis and at that time, deceased Madarji and Dhulaji had gone with the weapons. He denied the suggestion that prior to reaching the place, the lights of that area were switched off. He denied the suggestion that when those three had gone at that place, there was a riot and 25 to 30 Marwadis from the Bhajan Mandal as well as from the nearby neighbouring houses, had come running there and in the dark night, had assaulted three of them. His evidence denies the suggestion that till 5th July, he had not given the names of the accused. The evidence of PW6 becomes unreliable and untrustable.

20. PW4, a member of the Municipal Corporation, as per the evidence in the cross-examination is facing many criminal cases. He affirmed that Raghubhai Shivabhai had filed the case of grievous hurt against Rajuji Nathaji (PW6), Madarji Nathaji (deceased) and his brother Shivaji and other eight. He is not aware of the fact that accused no.2 was the witness in the matter and has expressed his ignorance about cases filed against him wherein accused nos.1, 2 and 4 are the witnesses. Page 44 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined The suggestions are of four cases filed against the witness PW4 by the accused. He affirmed that since last two years, there had been many cases against each other of Marwadis and Thakores. He is a Corporator of Viramgam since last seven years. His earlier term was from Aligarh Panel. He denied the suggestion that many offences were filed against him and therefore, he was ordered to be externed. 20.1 The defence examined witness Mr. Natu Motibhai at Exh.79, who stated that he attended the Bhajan in Ramdev Pir Temple by parking his motorcycle near the temple. According to the defence witness, the day was of Rathyatra i.e. Asad Bij, the area where he parked his motorcycle, the lights were off and it was dark night. During that time, the Bhajans were in progress. At that time, within two to three minutes, three to four persons came shouting and he went out, since it was dark, he could not identify the person. About 25, to 30 persons had come near Marwadis house and there was a clash between the two groups. He entered inside some person's house and afterwards when he came out, he saw that his motorcycle was totally burnt.

Page 45 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined 20.2 The defence by examining the witness had tried to prove on record that the incident had occur near the Ramdev Pir Temple and the corroboration of the vehicle being burnt had been brought by the defence near the temple. The defence witness states of a clash between two groups.

21. The cases filed by both the communities against each other shows long drawn enmity and the approach of falsely implicating as many accused as could be involved, gets clear. This witness PW4 denied the suggestion that he and deceased on 02.07.1992, at about 9:45 pm had assaulted Bharat Bhudar. The evidence on record by way of the FIR proves to substantiate the fact that some incident had occurred even prior to the alleged incident. The real genesis of the incident has not been brought on record.

22. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325: 2007 SCC OnLine SC 212 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied on the case of Kallu v. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313: (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 546: AIR 2006 SC 831, wherein it has been held as under: Page 46 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined "8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the appellate court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible.

The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court."

23. In view of the analysis of the evidence and the law established in the referred judgments, the learned trial Court Judge's observations for acquitting the accused requires no interference and there is no reason which comes forefront to upset the finding of the learned trial Court Judge in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1993 dated 02.07.1997. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and Criminal Revision Application stands rejected. Bail bond Page 47 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/755/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined discharged. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.

Sd/-

(GITA GOPI,J) Sd/-

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) PARMAR KRISH Page 48 of 48 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:23:46 IST 2026

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court