STATE OF GUJARAT v. DAMABHAI JIBHAI GOHIL & ORS.

Judgment

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatis7ed with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra in the Sessions Case no. 218 of 2001 for the o?ences punishable under Sections 302, 114, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short). R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

The brief facts leading to the 7ling of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Hasmukhbhai Narvatbhai is the real brother of the deceased Dilip Narvatbhai. The deceased, along with his brother Pravinbhai and mother Shantaben, resided jointly in Chhagan ni Muvadi village, Taluka Kalol, District Panchmahal. There existed a long-standing and deep-rooted enmity between the complainant's family and the family of accused Kantibhai Jibhai Gohil, stemming from an alleged illicit relationship between the deceased Dilip and the daughter of accused Kantibhai Jibhai who had been married about four years prior in Chidapuri village but was not residing with her in-laws, having returned to her parental home approximately 5–6 months before the incident. This alleged relationship had led to repeated verbal altercations, quarrels, and threats between the two families over a considerable period, creating a motive for the accused to eliminate the deceased.

2.2. According to the prosecution, on 20-04-2001, during the evening hours, the deceased Dilip, his brother Pravin, and mother Shantaben were proceeding from their agricultural 7eld hut towards their old ancestral house in the village after attending to routine farm work. While en route, the complainant Hasmukhbhai who was also present in the vicinity and other family members suddenly heard loud cries and screams emanating from the nearby open 7eld area, shouting that "Dilip Narvatbhai is being beaten” ("Dilip Narvatbhai ne maro mari nakhyo"). Alarmed by these cries, the complainant, along with Shantaben, Pravinbhai, and cousin Vinubhai, immediately rushed to the spot in the 7eld. Upon reaching the scene, the eye-witnesses allegedly witnessed the R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026 7ve accused persons Damabhai Jibhai Gohil, Kantibhai Jibhai Gohil, Somabhai Kantabhai Gohil, Dilip Damabhai Gohil, and Jaydip Damabhai Gohil actively assaulting the deceased.

2.3. It is the prosecution's speci7c case that accused Kantibhai Jibhai and Somabhai Kantabhai caught hold of and restrained the deceased by his arms, preventing him from escaping or defending himself, while accused Damabhai Jibhai inMicted repeated blows with a stabbing weapon on vital parts of the body, including the head, right and left shoulders, chest region, and other areas, causing profuse bleeding and serious injuries. The other accused persons, namely Dilip Damabhai and Jaydip Damabhai, allegedly participated by inMicting 7st blows and restraining the deceased, thereby sharing common intention to cause death. As a result of the brutal assault, the deceased sustained multiple stab wounds, fractures and internal injuries leading to neuro- hemorrhage. The injured deceased was immediately lifted and carried by the family members to the nearby Vejalpur Government Hospital for emergency medical treatment. However, upon examination by the doctor, he was declared brought dead around midnight approximately 12:00 a.m. on 21-04-2001. At the hospital, visible signs of assault such as bleeding from mouth, nose, and ears, bruises, abrasions, and stab and incised wounds were noted in the emergency case paper.

2.4. Thereafter, the complainant proceeded to Vejalpur Outpost and then to Kalol Police Station to lodge the complaint. The FIR came to be registered at Kalol Police Station on 21-04- 2001 at about 6:00 a.m. as C.R. No. 86 of 2001. At the scene of o?ence near the 7eld, blood stains, blood-soaked soil, the alleged weapon (gupti seized from accused Damabhai), blood-stained R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026 clothes of the deceased, and other incriminating articles were recovered during the spot panchnama and inquest proceedings.

2.5. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances collectively including the pre-existing enmity and motive arising from the alleged illicit relationship, the sudden and concerted assault by the 7ve accused persons armed with deadly weapons, the speci7c overt acts attributed to each accused restraining by some and inMicting fatal sharp weapon blows by Damabhai, the nature and situs of injuries as per post-mortem report multiple stab and incised wounds on head, chest, shoulders leading to fatal neuro-hemorrhage and shock, the prompt lodging of FIR by the complainant – eye witness, recovery of blood-stained muddamal articles including the weapon (gupti) from one of the accused.

2.6. Accordingly, after due investigation including scene of o?ence panchnama, inquest panchnama, post-mortem examination conducted on 21-04-2001 revealing fatal stab wounds consistent with sharp weapon), seizure of muddamal weapon, blood-stained clothes, soil, etc., FSL analysis, arrest of accused persons, and recording of statements the Kalol Police 7led the charge-sheet against the 7ve accused persons under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 114, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kalol. Finding the o?ences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Session, Panchmahal at Godhra, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 218 of 2001. Charges were accordingly framed, read over, and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

3. On conclusion of evidence, the Sessions Court put various incriminating circumstances to the respondent-accused persons under Section 313 of the Code. The respondent-accused denied all allegations and claimed to be innocent. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-accused.

4. We have heard learned APP for the State and examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Sessions Court.

5. Learned APP submits that the impugned order of acquittal is required to be set aside because the evidence of the eye-witnesses family members who allegedly saw the assault identi7es the accused and the medical evidence post-mortem showing fatal stab wounds to head and chest fully corroborates the ocular account. He therefore prays for allowing the appeal.

6. The incident is said to have occurred on the evening of 20-04- 2001 around evening to night time and in the open 7eld near the "khodiyavala" agricultural hut in Chhagan ni Muvadi village, Taluka Kalol, District Panchmahal. No independent eyewitness has been examined who claims to have seen the actual assault on the deceased Dilip Narvatbhai. The prosecution relies primarily on the ocular testimony of three material witnesses, namely the complainant Hasmukhbhai Narvatbhai brother of the deceased, Pravinbhai another brother, and Vinubhai cousin, all of whom are close relatives and interested parties. Additionally, the case hinges on circumstantial evidence, including the alleged recovery of the weapon (gupti) at the instance of accused No. 1 Damabhai Jibhai Gohil, blood-stained soil and clothes from the scene, and the post- mortem report establishing homicidal death due to stab wounds and neuro-hemorrhage. However, no direct evidence conclusively R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026 linking all 7ve accused persons to the act of murder has been produced, especially in light of the contradictions in the witnesses accounts regarding the sequence of events, the exact roles of each accused, and the nature of the weapon used.

7. The material witnesses examined for the ocular account of the incident have turned out to be unreliable due to vast contradictions in their testimonies. Importantly, all three witnesses Hasmukhbhai, Pravinbhai, and Vinubhai are close relatives of the deceased, and no independent witnesses from the village, despite the proximity of houses 10-12 houses nearby as per evidence, have been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the assault. The complainant Hasmukhbhai's FIR and deposition claim that accused No. 1 Damabhai inMicted stab wounds with a "chappu" while accused Nos. 2 Kantibhai Jibhai Gohil and 4 Somabhai Kantabhai Gohil caught hold of the deceased, and accused Nos. 3 Jaydipbhai Damabhai Gohil and 5 Dilipbhai Damabhai Gohil gave 7st blows and assisted with sticks "dandapatu". However, in cross- examination, inconsistencies emerged that some witnesses stated the deceased was already lying unconscious upon their arrival with no accused present, while others claimed to have seen the ongoing assault; further, the weapon is described variably as "chappu" in the FIR but recovered as "gupti" during investigation, with no explanation for this discrepancy. The panch witnesses for the scene of o?ence panchnama, recovery of blood-soaked soil, and the muddamal weapon gave inconsistent versions, with some supporting the recovery but others contradicting on material facts such as police inMuence and the exact disclosure by the accused.

8. A signi7cant weakness in the prosecution case is the complete failure to examine independent witnesses and the R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026 presence of procedural lapses in handling the body and FIR. No last seen together evidence has been established showing the deceased being waylaid or confronted by the accused prior to the alleged assault. The transportation of the deceased's body from the scene to Vejalpur Hospital, then purportedly to Kalol, revealed contradictions. Witnesses variably claimed the body was taken directly to Vejalpur where death was declared, while records show inquest and post-mortem at Kalol Community Health Centre, with no police memo or form accompanying the body as per standard procedure. The FIR timing is suspicious allegedly lodged around midnight but registered at 6:00 a.m. the next day with the original FIR not produced in court, only a copy relied upon. Moreover, the blood samples collected from the scene, clothes, and weapon were sent to the FSL, but the report, while con7rming blood presence, did not conclusively prove it matched the deceased's blood group or was human blood in all instances. The panchnama of the accused's houses and recoveries has been rendered doubtful due to contradictions between panch witnesses, such as the visibility of name boards, locked premises, and over-enthusiastic support from some panchas that smacked of tutoring.

9. Thus, the only circumstances sought to be proved are the alleged ocular account by relatives, recovery of the gupti shown by accused No. 1, and the existence of blood stains at the scene. However, these remain unconnected to the deceased by way of consistent testimonies or forensic evidence, with the weapon contradiction chappu or gupti further breaking the chain. The chain of circumstantial evidence, even if supplemented by the interested witnesses accounts, is broken at several vital links absence of independent corroboration, unreliable and contradictory relative witnesses, no proof of the deceased's blood matching the stains, no R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026 last seen evidence, no direct or consistent ocular account free from material contradictions, and failure to establish conscious possession or exclusive recovery implicating all accused in the murder itself. In such circumstances, the Sessions Court rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence establishes homicidal death due to stab wounds on vital parts, but the identity of the perpetrators, their speci7c roles, and the motive's direct linkage to the incident have not been established unequivocally.

10. It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Unless the 7ndings of the Sessions Court are shown to be perverse, the appellate Court will not interfere merely because another view is possible. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances or reliable direct evidence pointing solely to the guilt of the accused is not only a possible view but the only reasonable view on the evidence on record.

11. It may be noted that during the pendency of this appeal, accused Nos. 1 Damabhai Jibhai Gohil, 2 Kantibhai Jibhai Gohil, and 3 Jaydipbhai Damabhai Gohil have expired, and thus the appeal abates qua them. As regards the surviving accused Nos. 4 Somabhai Kantabhai Gohil and 5 Dilipbhai Damabhai Gohil, the evidence against them limited to allegations of holding the deceased and giving 7st blows is even weaker, resting solely on the contradicted testimonies of relatives without independent support. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal does not warrant any interference, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026

12. 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 7eld 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: (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 su4icient 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 “5ourishes 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 R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026 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, rea4irmed 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 7nding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

13. 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: - “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 7nding 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.”

14. In the light of the above discussion and the settled legal position, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondent-accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The R/CR.A/581/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2026 impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 16/02/2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra in Sessions Case No.218/2001 does not call for any interference.

15. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal is con7rmed. Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith. (VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) Kaushal Rathod Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. (R. T. VACHHANI, J)