Gujarat High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal of Police Sub-Inspector in Murder Case Due to Lack of Credible Evidence. Acquittal Under Sections 302, 323 IPC Upheld as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 15:37:46

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godhra at Panchmahal in Sessions Case No.67 of 2000, whereby the respondent-accused, Divyakant Arjunbhai Parmar, a Police Sub-Inspector, was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 29.01.2000 at about 8:30 pm, the accused along with two constables was checking vehicles at Sukhsar bus stand. They intercepted two tractors from Rajasthan. The complainant PW-3 Madansinh Ugamsinh and the deceased Manojarsinh were allegedly assaulted by the accused with a stick, causing an abdominal injury to the deceased, resulting in rupture of the liver and death within 3-4 hours. The FIR was lodged at Santrampur Police Station and later transferred to Fatehpura Police Station. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and the case was committed to Sessions Court. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the present appeal. The High Court heard the arguments of the learned APP and the defence counsel. The court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses were not credible; many turned hostile or gave contradictory versions. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution's claim that the injury was caused by a stick. The trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The High Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the appeal.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of interference - High Court will not interfere with acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not unreasonable (Paras 1-8).

B) Evidence - Credibility of witnesses - Contradictions and inconsistencies - Prosecution witnesses turned hostile or gave contradictory versions - Medical evidence did not support the prosecution case regarding the weapon used - Held that benefit of doubt must be given to the accused (Paras 4-8).

C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 323 - Murder and hurt - Police Sub-Inspector accused of causing death by stick blow - Prosecution failed to prove that the accused caused the fatal injury - No eyewitness account consistent with medical evidence - Held that acquittal was justified (Paras 4-8).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court is perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal under Section 378 of CrPC.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court.

Law Points

Appeal against acquittal
Section 378 CrPC
presumption of innocence
scope of interference in acquittal appeals
benefit of doubt
credibility of witnesses
medical evidence inconsistency

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:5948-DB

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599 of 2001

2026-01-28

ILESH J. VORA, R. T. VACHHANI

2026:GUJHC:5948-DB

Mr. Ronak Raval (APP for Appellant), Mr. Anil S. Dave (for Respondent), Mr. Kamen N. Shukla (for Opponent/Respondent No.1)

State of Gujarat

Divyakant Arjunbhai Parmar

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against acquittal by the State under Section 378 CrPC.

Remedy Sought

The State sought setting aside of the acquittal and conviction of the respondent for offences under Sections 302 and 323 IPC.

Filing Reason

The State was dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court.

Previous Decisions

The Sessions Court acquitted the respondent on 10.07.2001 in Sessions Case No.67 of 2000.

Issues

Whether the judgment of acquittal is perverse and liable to be set aside? Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?

Submissions/Arguments

The learned APP argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence. The defence counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case and the trial court's findings were correct.

Ratio Decidendi

In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not unreasonable. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment Excerpts

Here is the Appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal. This Court has heard Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned advocates Mr. Anil S. Dave, for the respective parties.

Procedural History

The respondent was tried in Sessions Case No.67 of 2000 before the Sessions Judge, Godhra at Panchmahal, who acquitted him on 10.07.2001. The State appealed to the High Court under Section 378 CrPC on 28.01.2026.