Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a landlord-tenant dispute over a shop premises in Ahmedabad. The complainant, Devendrakumar Shankarlal Oswal, was a tenant of Mansingh Tilakdhari Thakur. There were prior threats and incidents of breaking into the premises. On 22 March 2006, the complainant was at his shop when the appellant-accused in Criminal Appeal No.804 of 2012, Sunil @ Kaliyo Bharatbhai, along with others, allegedly attacked him. The appellant-accused inflicted a fatal blow with a knife, resulting in the death of the complainant's brother or associate (the judgment mentions the deceased as a person who came to sell scrap). The trial court convicted the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The co-accused in Sessions Case No.255/2010 and 256/2010 were acquitted of all charges. The appellant-accused appealed against his conviction, while the complainant appealed against the acquittal of the co-accused. The High Court, after hearing arguments and examining evidence, upheld the conviction of the appellant-accused, finding that the eyewitness testimony and medical evidence clearly established his guilt. However, the court dismissed the appeals against acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove common intention or any specific role of the co-accused in the murder. The court noted that the acquittal appeals lacked merit as the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court on 13 January 2026.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Landlord-tenant dispute leading to fatal assault - Appellant-accused convicted for murder based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence - Held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant-accused (Paras 1-24).
B) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal under Section 372 CrPC - Co-accused acquitted for lack of evidence of common intention - Held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC or any other offence against the acquitted accused (Paras 1-24).
C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Maintainability of appeals - Conviction appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC and acquittal appeals under Section 372 CrPC - All appeals arising from same incident heard together - Held that the court can decide both conviction and acquittal appeals in a common judgment (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act is sustainable; and whether the acquittal of the co-accused for offences under Sections 302, 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 120-B IPC read with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act is correct.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No.804 of 2012, upholding the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The court also dismissed Criminal Appeal Nos.1182 of 2011 and 1183 of 2011, confirming the acquittal of the co-accused.
Law Points
- Murder
- Common intention
- Acquittal appeal
- Conviction appeal
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 135 Bombay Police Act
- Section 374 CrPC
- Section 372 CrPC
Case Details
R/Criminal Appeal No. 804 of 2012 with R/Criminal Appeal No. 1182 of 2011 and R/Criminal Appeal No. 1183 of 2011
Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora, Honourable Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani
Mr. Bharat B. Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas for appellant in Criminal Appeal No.804/2012; Mr. Mousam R. Yagnik for appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.1182 and 1183 of 2011; Mr. Bhargav Pandya, APP for respondent
Sunil @ Kaliyo Bharatbhai (in Criminal Appeal No.804/2012); Devendrakumar Shankarlal Oswal (in Criminal Appeal Nos.1182/2011 and 1183/2011)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal in a murder case arising from a landlord-tenant dispute.
Remedy Sought
Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.804/2012 sought acquittal; appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.1182 and 1183/2011 sought conviction of the acquitted accused.
Filing Reason
Dissatisfaction with the trial court's judgment of conviction and acquittal.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted Sunil @ Kaliyo Bharatbhai under Section 302 IPC and Section 135(1) Bombay Police Act; acquitted other accused in Sessions Case No.255/2010 and 256/2010.
Issues
Whether the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Whether the acquittal of the co-accused for offences under Sections 302, 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 120-B IPC read with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act is correct.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.804/2012 argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the conviction was based on unreliable eyewitness testimony.
Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.1182 and 1183/2011 argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the co-accused despite evidence of common intention.
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction of the appellant-accused is based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal of the co-accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to prove common intention or any specific role in the murder.
Judgment Excerpts
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, City Civil and learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.199/2011, whereby the appellant-accused came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.804 of 2012 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Whereas, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, City Civil and learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.255/2010 with Sessions Case No.256/2010 has been assailed, whereby the respondent-accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – complainant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1182 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No.1183 of 2011 under Section 372 of the Code.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted Sunil @ Kaliyo Bharatbhai on 30.04.2012 in Sessions Case No.199/2011. The trial court acquitted the co-accused on 20.04.2011 in Sessions Case No.255/2010 and 256/2010. Appeals were filed against both judgments. The High Court heard all appeals together and delivered a common judgment on 13.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 452, 323, 504, 506(2), 120-B, 34
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 135(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 372
