High Court of Gujarat Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case — Prosecution Fails to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Circumstantial Evidence and Witness Testimonies Found Insufficient to Sustain Conviction Under Sections 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 14:08:58

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No.43 of 2000, whereby the respondent-accused Amarsinh Nagubhai Kharad was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case of the prosecution was that on 02.12.1999, near the farmhouse of PW:3 Velji Kharad at Village Borial, Taluka Garbada, District Dahod, the accused allegedly strangulated the deceased Kashna Nanji using a red scarf over a dispute regarding a loan of Rs.2,000/-. The incident was allegedly witnessed by Velji Kharad and one Savsingh. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead on arrival. The brother of the deceased, Kanu Gohil (PW:2), lodged an FIR at Garbada Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R.No.159 of 1999. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet. The trial court framed charges under Sections 302 and 504 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt. The State appealed against the acquittal. The High Court heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned advocate for the respondent. The High Court, after perusing the evidence and the impugned judgment, held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the witnesses turned hostile and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Standard of review - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal will not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the appellate court should be slow in reversing the finding of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons (Paras 8-10).

B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution must prove chain of circumstances consistent only with guilt of accused - Held that in the present case, the prosecution failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused (Paras 11-15).

C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 504 - Intentional insult - Ingredients - Mere exchange of words not sufficient to constitute offence under Section 504 IPC - Held that the prosecution did not prove the essential ingredients of the offence (Para 16).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse and liable to be set aside?

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No.43 of 2000.

Law Points

Acquittal appeal
standard of review
circumstantial evidence
benefit of doubt
Section 378 Cr.P.C.
Section 302 IPC
Section 504 IPC

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:931-DB

R/Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2001

2026-01-07

Ilesh J. Vora, R. T. Vachhani

2026:GUJHC:931-DB

Mr. Ronak Raval, APP for the Appellant; Mr. Yatin Soni for the Respondent

State of Gujarat

Amarsinh Nagubhai Kharad

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against acquittal

Remedy Sought

The State of Gujarat sought setting aside of the acquittal and conviction of the respondent-accused for offences under Sections 302 and 504 IPC.

Filing Reason

The State was dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No.43 of 2000.

Previous Decisions

The learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, by judgment dated 15.02.2001, acquitted the respondent-accused of the offences under Sections 302 and 504 IPC.

Issues

Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse and liable to be set aside?

Submissions/Arguments

Learned APP for the State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence. Learned advocate for the respondent supported the acquittal, submitting that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and if the trial court's view is a possible view, the appellate court should not substitute its own view.

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 Mr.Yatin Soni, learned advocate for the respective parties.

Procedural History

The respondent-accused was tried in Sessions Case No.43 of 2000 before the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, who acquitted him on 15.02.2001. The State filed the present appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. on 18.04.2001. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 07.01.2026.