Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Thakore Hakabhai Karamshibhai on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1207 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
THAKORE HAKABHAI KARAMSHIBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 17/04/2026
JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR)
1) Present appeal is directed by the appellant - State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.08.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No.137 of 1998, whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons - the opponents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 504, 120(B), 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
2) Learned APP for the respondent State has stated that during pendency of the present appeal, accused - Thakore Shivabhai @ Matuji Talshija has expired and hence, present appeal stands abated qua respondent No.3 herein.
3) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant, Tejabhai Chudabhai Raval, was residing in village Chandarani of Sami Taluka and was earning his livelihood by operating a camel cart. On 09.03.1998, the complainant went to Radhanpur Ganj Bazaar carrying eight bags of chunk belonging to one Darbar Chandansinh. After unloading the goods, while returning from Radhanpur to village Chandarani, and upon reaching the area between villages Gochnad and Bismillabad, a rickshaw overtook his camel cart and proceeded towards village Bismillabad. The said rickshaw was driven by Somabhai Ravabhai Rana of village Godhana, and deceased Ramjibhai Mavjibhai Raval along with one Darbar Navalsinh Devaji were seated in it. When the complainant reached the bus stand of village Bismillabad, accused Thakore Hakaji Karamshiji (armed with a dhariya), Sonaji Talshiji Thakore (armed with a barchhi), Matubhai Talasibhai Thakore (armed with a dhariya), Kanuji Hamaji Thakore (armed with a stick), and Jayantiji Hakaji Thakore (armed with a stick) were present there. All the accused approached the rickshaw, uttered filthy abuses, and forcibly dragged the deceased out of the rickshaw. They declared that although Mavjibhai Mohanbhai Raval, the father of the deceased, had murdered Talasibhai Karamshibhai about ten years earlier and had been acquitted in that case, they intended to kill the deceased. Thereafter, all the accused assaulted Ramjibhai Mavjibhai Raval with deadly weapons and committed his murder.
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
4) Accordingly, FIR being C.R.No.I-25/1998 was lodged before Sami Police Station, came to be lodged. Investigation was carried out and ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 120-B and 504 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act before the jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. committed the said case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.137/1998. Since, the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the said offences.
5) At the trial, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also relied upon several documentary evidence.
6) At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, and upon hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court acquitted present respondents - accused from all the offence vide impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.08.1999 in Sessions Case No.137/1998, as mentioned above.
7) Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant - State preferred present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
9) Learned APP for the appellant - State has contended that, the learned trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondents - accused and not properly appreciated the evidence Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined produced on record though the prosecution had proved case against the accused. It is also submitted that majority of the prosecution witnesses and investigating officer have supported the case of the prosecution. Merely on technical ground, learned Sessions Court has ignored the evidence tendered by the prosecution. The ld. Sessions Court ought to have considered that the accused persons have formed an unlawful assembly on the date and time of the incident with regard to take revenge of earlier dispute and committed murder by inflicting deadly weapons like knife, scythe, etc. That the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly of Dr. Yogeshbhal Narsibhai Patel, who was examined at Exh. 43 and P.M report at Exh.44. He had clearly deposed that looking to the P.M report, injuries Nos.1, 3 and 4 could be possible by muddamal weapons. That the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondents accused have produced their respective weapons which were used in commission of offence. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have held that the accused have committed breach of provisions of notification issued under the Bombay Police Act. From the PM report, it reveals that the death of the deceased caused due to blunt and sharp edged weapons, however, learned trial Court has given undue importance of minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. FSL report also clearly reveals blood stains of the deceased on the weapons recovered from the accused. Thereby, involvement of the accused clearly proved on record. Hence, on technical ground alone, learned Trial court recorded acquittal, which is unjust and improper.
On the aforesaid contentions, learned APP submitted that, present appeal may kindly be allowed, as prayed for.
Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
10) As against this, Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the respondents-accused has supported the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, submitting that the same was delivered after proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is contended that, upon considering the post- mortem note and the evidence of the Medical Officer PW: 14, no serious effort has been made by the prosecution to correlate the medical evidence with the ocular version, particularly with regard to the weapons allegedly used, the nature and impact of injuries caused by specific weapons, and their probability to cause death. The only opinion elicited is that, injury Nos. 1 and 8 were life- threatening, while the remaining injuries were not sufficient to cause death, which creates doubt regarding the involvement of all five accused, their specific roles, and participation in the assault, as well as the possibility of their over-implication. It is further submitted that the panch witnesses relating to the recovery and discovery of clothes and weapons, namely PW-1 to PW-6, have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. In absence of the contents of the panchnamas being proved through independent evidence, and merely being brought on record through the testimony of the Investigating Officer, the evidentiary value of the FSL and Serological Reports at Exhs:49 to 52, is significantly vitiated, particularly with regard to the alleged presence of the deceased's blood on the clothes of the accused. Reliance is placed on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2025 (2) Crimes 312, especially paragraphs 26 and 27 thereof, wherein it has been held that even if another view is possible, it is not a ground to overturn an order of acquittal. It is further held that even in grave or shocking incidents, the prosecution must Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by legal evidence, failing which an order of acquittal cannot be interfered with.
11) It is further contended that, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.08.1999, is not merely a possible view but the only reasonable view based on the evidence on record. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may not convert the acquittal into a conviction, keeping in mind the settled principles under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which permit reversal of acquittal only in exceptional circumstances. Hence, no interference is warranted, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court.
12) Considering the law laid down in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, every criminal trial starts with general presumption and one of the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty. Burden of proving the case of the prosecution always rests on the shoulder of the prosecution. As a consequence, the onus on the prosecution becomes more burdensome as there is a double presumption of innocence, which gathers strength before the appellate Court.
13) It would be further apposite to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440.
"While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."
14) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the complainant Raval Tejabhai Chundabhai has lodged a complaint alleging that he is engaged in running camel cart and on 09.03.1998, he went to Radhanpur Ganj Bazaar carrying eight bags of chana belonging to one Darbar Chandansinh. After unloading the goods, while returning from Radhanpur to village Chandarani, and upon reaching the between villages Gochnad and Bismillabad, one rickshaw overtook his camel cart and proceeded towards village Bismillabad. The said rickshaw was driven by Somabhai Ravabhai Rana of village Godhana, and deceased Ramjibhai Mavjibhai Raval along with one Darbar Navalsinh Devaji were seated in it. When the complainant reached the bus stand of village Bismillabad, accused Thakore Hakaji Karamshiji armed with a scythe, Sonaji Talshiji Thakore armed with a Barchhi, Matubhai Talasibhai Thakore armed with a scythe, Kanuji Hamaji Thakore armed with a stick, and Jayantiji Hakaji Thakore armed with a stick were present there. All the accused approached the rickshaw, uttered filthy abuses and forcibly dragged the deceased out of the rickshaw. The accused told that before 10 years, Mavjibhai Mohanbhai Raval (father of the deceased) had murdered Talasibhai Karamshibhai and in that murder case, he was acquitted and therefore, keeping that grudge, they intended to kill the deceased. Thereafter, all the accused assaulted Ramjibhai Mavjibhai Raval with deadly weapons and committed murder.
Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
15) To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and produced several documentary evidence. After that, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the beginning, it is important to note that the fact of death of the deceased was not seriously disputed by either side before the Trial Court. The prosecution examined Dr. Yogeshbhai Narsinhbhai Patel at Exh. 43, who conducted the post-mortem. He stated that there were 14 injuries on the body of the deceased. According to him, injuries Nos. 2, 6, and 8 could have been caused by sharp weapons, while injuries Nos. 7 and 9 to 14 could have been caused by blunt objects. However, the Sessions Court noted that the doctor did not clearly mention the nature of injuries in the post-mortem report and later gave his opinion before the Court. This was considered either a mistake or lack of experience. Despite this, the Trial Court concluded that the death was homicidal. Therefore, the fact of death is not in dispute. This Court has also examined the evidence and the reasons given by the Trial Court. Out of the 18 witnesses, 8 witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Even from their cross-examination, nothing helpful to the prosecution could be found. Important point is that the Investigating Officer, Mr. Maher, had passed away before he could be examined in Court and his writer Mr. Jayantilal at Exh. 57 was examined. He had only written the complaint as per the instructions of the Investigating Officer and identified his handwriting. Apart from this, he did not provide any significant evidence. He also confirmed the panchnama at Exh. 29. He stated that he had recorded statements of witnesses as instructed. Some contradictions were brought on record through his evidence.
Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
16) The complainant, Tejabhai Raval, also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Although, during cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that he had filed the complaint and that the incident had occurred as stated in it, the Trial Court found that his testimony did not inspire confidence. Even though the prosecution treated him as an eyewitness, the Court was not satisfied about his presence at the scene or his knowledge of the incident. The Trial Court further observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused formed an unlawful assembly or that they performed common object. It is well settled that, for convicting any person with the help of Section 149 of the IPC, the prosecution must clearly establish the existence of a common object. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 4 SCC 538. Therefore, the evidence produced before the Trial Court was not sufficient to prove the case against the accused or to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. After properly appreciating the evidence, the learned Trial Court rightly concluded that the prosecution case was not reliable and acquitted the accused of the charges against them.
17) No any sufficient evidence led before the learned Trial Court to prove the unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the IPC. In order to prove the offence under Section 143 of IPC, prosecution must be proved ingredients of unlawful assembly. Further, in order to recording the conviction in aid of Section 149 of IPC, prosecution must establish common object. Here no sufficient evidence is produced on record to draw inference qua common object also. No evidence qua participation of accused persons Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined forming unlawful assembly is produced on record and prosecution failed to prove the unlawful assembly and common object or an overtact on the part of the accused. Hence, question does not arise to record conviction merely based on presumption under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC. No any evidence qua breach of public tranquility is produced on record or breach of public peace. Further, no any evidence led qua common intention or in furtherance of common intention, accused have done any act. Hence, the evidence of the panch witnesses is not helpful to the prosecution, and nothing has emerged from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, even after declaring them hostile, which may be helpful to the case of the prosecution.
18) It is needless to state that enmity is a double-edged weapon.
Along with the further statement, copy of the complaint filed by the accused persons against the deceased has been produced on record. In absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, and considering the prior enmity, which is a double-edged weapon, it may on the one hand provide a motive for the commission of the offence, but on the other hand, it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. Hence, from the nature of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the possibility of the accused persons being falsely implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam @ Imran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2025 (2) Cri. L.R. (Supreme) 523.
19) Furthermore, though there was alleged enmity between the accused and the deceased, such enmity by itself does not establish the motive and in certain circumstances may even create doubt Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined regarding false implication of the accused. Considering that the material witnesses have turned hostile and no independent witness has supported the prosecution case, it would not be safe to record a conviction solely on the basis of the testimony of the investigating officer without any corroborative piece of evidence. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and no error has been committed by the trial Court in acquitting the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even 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.
20) Considering the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence until and unless offence is proved by the prosecution against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt accused is innocent. It appears that, prosecution is failed to produced or adduced any clinching and material evidence which is of sterling quality, which connect the accused persons with the alleged offence.
21) In view of above, learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in recording the acquittal and prosecution and appellant failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Considering the aforesaid facts and reasons and even going through the findings of learned trial Court, it appears that the same are just, legal and proper. Further, learned APP has failed to point out any palpable error in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court, which are manifestly erroneous or unsustainable.
Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1207/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
22) In view of the above and in backdrop of the evidence adduced/produced by the prosecution, material contradictions which goes to the root of the case of the prosecution are noticed by the learned trial Court and as the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused.
23) Accordingly, present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.08.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No.137 of 1998, stands confirmed. Bail bond, if any, given by respondents- accused stands discharged. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith .
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) (D.N.RAY,J) SUCHIT Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:29:33 IST 2026